[anti-abuse-wg] Spam FAQs need revision, was 2011-06 New Policy

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 at consumer.net <russ at 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 at gmail.com)