[anti-abuse-wg] RIPE 57: Anti Abuse WG Minutes

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 at heanet.ie>
> >> To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
> >> Reply-To: brian.nisbet at 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 “white list” 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. )