This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[anti-abuse-wg] [Misc] Research project on blacklists
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [Misc] Research project on blacklists
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [Misc] Research project on blacklists
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
ac
ac at main.me
Thu Jul 18 07:20:58 CEST 2019
Oh. Lets look more at this then. "UC Berkeley" - USA "International Computer Science Institute" "evaluating and improving the accuracy of blacklists." "including a web link, which is tracked and cross tracked" "an anonymous survey" Dude, let us be frank: On this list we discuss abuse, in the open and directly. People on this list has "skills" and can all be anonymous on this list, if they wish to, in fact, many are. (I do not and I am not private) We are talking about email blacklists? right? as the routing blacklists do not bother the evil tech monopolies! It is a fact that the spam from the top ten USA tech companies are the most challenging abuse on the planet - as this type of abuse, is the hardest to combat. - Twitter does not even accept abuse complaints. Facebook does not care and Google mixes spam with ham all the time to defeat email blacklists Why not study the reasons for the percentage increase in the use of inspection/tracking/non private/invasive anti abuse technologies in use by the largest email and dominant players, Google and Microsoft, of ipv6 and the reason why these huge tech players HAVE to push for ipv6 email servers relay to ensure their future dominance of email relay? Instead of "My colleagues and I are working on evaluating and improving the accuracy of blacklists" As, imnsho, that is absolute USA bullshit. and is not even possible. I would go sofar as to state that such research is not intended to "improve" anything but to cement the monopolies we fight daily and is on the EVIL side of the fight. Andre On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 10:01:16 -0700 Barry Greene <barryrgreene at gmail.com> wrote: > Not a joke. > > Just a researcher exploring ways to quantify and measure. Always > important to have the academic doing the due diligence on our > operational assumptions. > > > On Jul 17, 2019, at 07:40, ac <ac at main.me> wrote: > > > > > > This is a joke email, right? > > > > Is it the 1st of April already? :) > > > > Andre > > > > On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 13:42:21 +0200 > > Anushah Hossain <anushah at icsi.berkeley.edu> wrote: > > > >> Hi everyone, > >> > >> I'm a researcher at UC Berkeley and the International Computer > >> Science Institute. My colleagues and I are working on evaluating > >> and improving the accuracy of blacklists. As part of this work, > >> we'd like to hear from you about the blacklists you currently use, > >> what you perceive as their strengths and weaknesses, and any > >> thoughts you have on how they might be improved. > >> > >> We've prepared an anonymous survey where you can share your views: > >> > >> If you have five to ten minutes free today to fill it out, I would > >> greatly appreciate your help! Thank you, and please don't hesitate > >> to respond to me with comments or questions. > >> > >> (Apologies if you receive this message twice - trying to minimize > >> cross-posting while still reaching a broad audience) > >> > >> Best, > >> Anushah > >> > > > >
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [Misc] Research project on blacklists
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [Misc] Research project on blacklists
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]