Re: [anti-abuse-wg] RIPE 57: Anti Abuse WG Minutes
Thor Kottelin wrote:
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 14:01:25 +0100 (IST) From: "Brian Nisbet" <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Reply-To: brian.nisbet@heanet.ie
RIPE 57 Meeting Dubai Anti-Abuse Working Group Wednesday, 28 October 2008, 13:30
There was a comment that there was currently a spam initiative from Microsoft and some ISPs to bring those who are spamming to court. They are also making a database of spammers. There is also a German initiative to create a âwhite listâ because people sometimes want advertising and this allows companies to send advertising and not have it considered as spam. Brian said that he had seen initiatives like this and hopefully it will reduce instances of phishing. He added that the challenge is that people are quick to report spam and this affects genuine advertisers.
Thank you for posting the minutes.
There is one thing I have difficulty understanding: for which definition of "genuine advertisers" are such advertisers affected by having (their?) spam reported?
Certainly my meaning here refers to advertising that people have requested, rather than UBE. One issue that companies see is that users sign-up to newsletters or the like, then forget they have done so and hit the "report spam" button when something drops into their inbox. If such spam reports are made, then the sender's emails will be blocked by the service provider and legitimately requested email will not reach its destination, thereby affecting the relevant sender's business. Does that clairfy it at all? Thanks, Brian.
-----Original Message----- From: Brian Nisbet [mailto:brian.nisbet@heanet.ie] Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 3:05 PM To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Cc: Thor Kottelin
There is one thing I have difficulty understanding: for which definition of "genuine advertisers" are such advertisers affected by having (their?) spam reported?
Certainly my meaning here refers to advertising that people have requested, rather than UBE. One issue that companies see is that users sign-up to newsletters or the like, then forget they have done so and hit the "report spam" button when something drops into their inbox.
If such spam reports are made, then the sender's emails will be blocked by the service provider and legitimately requested email will not reach its destination, thereby affecting the relevant sender's business.
Thank you for the clarification. I now understand better what you mean. Of course, there will always be some volume of false reports due to human negligence. On the other hand, the vast majority of users are probably not likely to report as spam something they have intentionally requested to receive. (Consider, for example, the odds of a working-group member reporting this list message as spam.) It must be almost infinitely more common for UBE senders to spuriously invoke excuses of the "TINS because you joined a list we bought" kind. Thus, the issue of false positive reports should not be given excessive weight. -- Thor Kottelin http://www.anta.net/
--On 6 May 2009 15:38:54 +0300 Thor Kottelin <thor@anta.net> wrote:
On the other hand, the vast majority of users are probably not likely to report as spam something they have intentionally requested to receive. (Consider, for example, the odds of a working-group member reporting this list message as spam.) It must be almost infinitely more common for UBE senders to spuriously invoke excuses of the "TINS because you joined a list we bought" kind. Thus, the issue of false positive reports should not be given excessive weight.
Hmm... I manage a Mailman list server for a University. We see plenty of spam report feedback, which occurs because some web mail providers make it very easy to report unwanted email as spam. In one interface I've seen, there are two buttons "delete" and "report" with no separation between them. It would be nice if they'd devote some resource to exposing the URLs in the List-unsubscribe headers on the emails that are being reported. I really do believe that at least 20% of reports on emails sent from our servers are actually due to people changing their mind about the quality of content on lists that they signed up to. -- Ian Eiloart IT Services, University of Sussex 01273-873148 x3148 For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/
Please remove me from this list. Tks., Yves -----Mensagem original----- De: anti-abuse-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-admin@ripe.net] Em nome de Ian Eiloart Enviada em: quarta-feira, 6 de maio de 2009 10:14 Para: Thor Kottelin; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Assunto: RE: [anti-abuse-wg] RIPE 57: Anti Abuse WG Minutes --On 6 May 2009 15:38:54 +0300 Thor Kottelin <thor@anta.net> wrote:
On the other hand, the vast majority of users are probably not likely to report as spam something they have intentionally requested to receive. (Consider, for example, the odds of a working-group member reporting this list message as spam.) It must be almost infinitely more common for UBE senders to spuriously invoke excuses of the "TINS because you joined a list we bought" kind. Thus, the issue of false positive reports should not be given excessive weight.
Hmm... I manage a Mailman list server for a University. We see plenty of spam report feedback, which occurs because some web mail providers make it very easy to report unwanted email as spam. In one interface I've seen, there are two buttons "delete" and "report" with no separation between them. It would be nice if they'd devote some resource to exposing the URLs in the List-unsubscribe headers on the emails that are being reported. I really do believe that at least 20% of reports on emails sent from our servers are actually due to people changing their mind about the quality of content on lists that they signed up to. -- Ian Eiloart IT Services, University of Sussex 01273-873148 x3148 For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/
One issue that companies see is that users sign-up to newsletters or the like, then forget they have done so and hit the "report spam" button when something drops into their inbox.
If such spam reports are made, then the sender's emails will be blocked by the service provider and legitimately requested email will not reach its destination, thereby affecting the relevant sender's business.
Apologies for this addition, but I would also like to note that this specific scenario is a non-issue. If a service provider blocks mail because of user requests or any other reason, it is within its right to do so. Mail server farms are private property; no sender can have a subjective right to reach anyone's inbox, whether or not said sender's profits would be affected by its bulk mail not being read. I guess the bottom line is that bulk mailing is such a tainted industry that anyone who sets up shop therein must assume that their mail will be blocked to heaven and back. -- Thor Kottelin http://www.anta.net/
On Wednesday 06 May 2009 14.04, Brian Nisbet wrote:
Thor Kottelin wrote:
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 14:01:25 +0100 (IST) From: "Brian Nisbet" <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Reply-To: brian.nisbet@heanet.ie
RIPE 57 Meeting Dubai Anti-Abuse Working Group Wednesday, 28 October 2008, 13:30
There was a comment that there was currently a spam initiative from Microsoft and some ISPs to bring those who are spamming to court. They are also making a database of spammers. There is also a German initiative to create a âwhite listâ because people sometimes want advertising and this allows companies to send advertising and not have it considered as spam. Brian said that he had seen initiatives like this and hopefully it will reduce instances of phishing. He added that the challenge is that people are quick to report spam and this affects genuine advertisers.
Thank you for posting the minutes.
There is one thing I have difficulty understanding: for which definition of "genuine advertisers" are such advertisers affected by having (their?) spam reported?
Certainly my meaning here refers to advertising that people have requested, rather than UBE. One issue that companies see is that users sign-up to newsletters or the like, then forget they have done so and hit the "report spam" button when something drops into their inbox.
If such spam reports are made, then the sender's emails will be blocked by the service provider and legitimately requested email will not reach its destination, thereby affecting the relevant sender's business.
A lot of "so called" registered requests occur automatically and with very convoluted informatioon on many "commercial" outfits. One must read very carefully and check for all more or less hidden checkboxes to make shure one does not subscribes to spam. Anyone sending out spam ( or "information letters" ) has to be very shure that the user actually wants this spap ( or "information letters"). So in my opinion, "genuine advertisers" has a responsibility to inform and must be aware that any user that ( mistakenly) reports as sopam will harm their sending of "information".
Does that clairfy it at all?
Thanks,
Brian.
-- Peter Håkanson There's never money to do it right, but always money to do it again ... and again ... and again ... and again. ( Det är billigare att göra rätt. Det är dyrt att laga fel. )
participants (5)
-
Brian Nisbet -
Ian Eiloart -
peter h -
Thor Kottelin -
Yves