[anti-abuse-wg] Hold time for abused address space - DNSChanger IP's reallocated

On Aug 16, 2012, at 4:32 PM, lists at help.org wrote:

> If I ran the same list and just claimed those people on the list were "spammers" or "internet abusers" without explaining that they posted a sig with more than 6 lines and I personally defined that as "abuse" then that is a poorly run list.

Well, they would be spammers or abusers according to your definition. As long as the contents of your list were consistent with whatever you define, then the list would be "well maintained". That list would be expressing *your* opinion. If you ask most people on this list whether they agree with the implicit definition of spam you used for this hypothetical list, I'm fairly certain most would disagree. 

Now, mail system administrators would also have to agree with your definition (or at least, consider your list as a useful resource) in order to add it to their own filtering systems. Until that happens, a listing in your list has no consequence for the mail flow.

And mail system administrators' opinions will be heavily biased with the customers they serve. If an admin deploys a list that blocks legitimate spam (or that does not block enough of it) customers will complain and eventually leave. This is evolution at work.

> For instance,http://www.spamhaus.org/consumer/definition/ is not a usable definition to be a standard because it is just a collection of vague, undefined terms.

Yet that definition is good enough to be used by the community at large, so I would call it a de facto standard. Chances are this message will have to pass through a bunch of mail filters whose inputs are based on that precise definition.

Best regards

-lem