On 8/29/2016 10:26 AM, Eric Henson wrote:
Rob posted in the thread above that emailreg.org is legit.

fwiw, here is what I said about emailreg.org, back in 2009:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone I have great respect for has vouched to me (off-list) that he has inside personal knowledge of emailreg.org and that he knows for 100% positive that this is well run, very ethically run, and NOT pay-for-play (or something like that--still trying to figure that last one out a bit). Nevertheless, given this person's confidential assessment, I am now convinced that there are honest and altruistic intentions behind emailreg.org and I'm convinced that those running it must be highly ethical and competent. (I'm still distrustful of the quality of ANY whitelist which involves payment even if the intentions are honorable, but that is just my personal taste.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

That is what I said in 2009. But I continue to have doubts about how the stated altruistic goals can even be achieved without this downward spiraling into pay-for-play... or, at the least, how pay for whitelisting can't lead to a negative impact on the quality of the whitelist, especially when compared to whitelists that are instead built by recipients' feedback, etc? Still, considering the good things that I was told in confidence by an unbiased industry expert, I'm very much inclined to give emailreg.org MUCH "benefit of the doubt"

--
Rob McEwen



_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Reply via email to