[anti-abuse-wg] Metrics for quality of BL or other abuse sites, was Hold time for abused address space - DNSChanger IP's reallocated

Thor,

On Wednesday, 2012-08-15 20:43:03 +0300, 
"Thor Kottelin" <thor.kottelin at turvasana.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-
> > bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of lists at help.org
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 8:01 PM
> > To: <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
> 
> > On 8/15/2012 11:55 AM, Luis Muñoz wrote:
> > > In my experience, lists managed through those principles tend to
> > fall out of use relatively quickly and are therefore rather
> > inconsequential for mail delivery.
> >
> > That is not my experience.  For instance, you can readily find
> > complaints about Microsoft and Cisco as well as some of the
> > contributors
> > to this list.
> 
> One can probably 'find complaints' about whichever matter in
> existence. Highly useful and widely used DNSBLs tend to draw
> particularly large amounts of irate complaints from people whose
> resources have been listed.

"The plural of anecdote is not data."(*)

I find this particular bit of the exchange interesting. I wonder if
there are metrics - preferably open and peer-reviewed metrics - for the
quality of black list or other abuse reporting sites? This seems like
it could be useful, and not only for arguments on the anti-abuse
mailing list. :)

--
Shane

(*) I was going to attribute this, but it's not clear where this
    originated from: http://bearcastle.com/blog/?p=408