I will be the last to deny that 1. There's poor quality spam filtering out there 2. There's poor quality customer service types out there [especially in abuse - being a great bofh doesnt make you a great abuse desker] But that isn't any reason to tar all spam filtering with the same brush. On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 2:30 PM, russ@consumer.net <russ@consumer.net> wrote:
If the list is run poorly the impact can be tremendous. Both Cisco and Microsoft both currently run blacklists that generate all sorts of complaints. They often won't tell people why they were put on the lists. Even when they remove someone people report the staff is arrogant and accusatory. They assume anyone on the list is guilty and it up to them to prove otherwise. the complaints say sometimes they don't remove false alarms for months. Another guy in Australia running a blacklist used to demand "donations" to get removed and if he got into an argument with someone he would add them to the list. (On top of that he used to register for free DNS services and crash them by uploading his blacklist). Many in abuse do not think twice about advising ISP's to do deep packet inspection to find abuse and malware without ever considering the ISP's marketing department will use the system for other purposes. The people involved in privacy are the same way. They often don't consider the security implications of keeping everything private.
-- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)