Re: [Asrg] Re: Spam, why is it still a problem?

In message <63E00039-3AC0-4FAB-ADB3-B856C3FC5B8B@mail-abuse.org>, 
Douglas Otis <dotis@mail-abuse.org> writes
>Sender ALLOW
>Remove sender from Allow list -->
>https://www.vqme.com/pk/eh?op=remove_from_allow&From=asrg%2Dbounces@ietf
>.org&VU=bCnsahfkMSAuP8lpCMGeUQ
>Block sender -->
>https://www.vqme.com/pk/eh?op=block_sender&From=asrg%2Dbounces@ietf.org&
>VU=bCnsahfkMSAuP8lpCMGeUQ
>
>
>On Jan 17, 2006, at 3:32 PM, Craig Cockburn wrote:
>
>> Moving on then to the next stage, if these technologies are still 
>>deemed inadequate because of false positives or an unacceptable 
>>quantity of spam (+ phishing + viruses and worms etc) arriving    then 
>>a global upgrade of email in some form needs to happen. Whilst   I'm 
>>not denying this is a difficult job I don't think it's quite as   hard 
>>as people make out. Especially for those people who find their 
>>legitimate email blocked they could easily be persuaded to join in 
>>some form of sender reputation based framework as there's something 
>>in it for them. e.g.
>> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/specs/draft-allman-dkim-ssp-01.txt
>
>I find it interesting one would equate protection from email blocking 
>with SSP.

Sorry about that. With 41 replies already on a normally fairly quiet 
list I was trying not to get into individual solutions as this would 
presumably increase the volume even more. I was simply trying to say 
that some sort of positive rating framework or positive sender 
reputation would have something in it for certain senders who for 
legitimate reasons are already having genuine mail misclassified.

-- 
Craig Cockburn ("coburn"). http://www.SiliconGlen.com/
Please sign the Spam Petition: http://www.siliconglen.com/spampetition/
Home to the first online guide to Scotland, founded 1994.
Scottish FAQ, weddings, website design, stop spam and more!

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg