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
