On 1/8/2019 5:16 PM, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote:
I also see an issue where you probably shouldn't criticize
another DNSBL unless you have data that they are misstating why and how
they collect fees for their efforts
Jim,
My focus was always on "best practices" and principles - and I think I
did a pretty good job of avoiding "naming names" (go back and see for
yourself). If someone was reading your statement above - and hadn't
actually read my earlier few posts I made - they would have a radically
twisted (and negative) impression of me and what I stated - compared to
what actually happened.
But I will say this - I sleep well at night knowing that I am
economically incentivized to run invaluement with the highest ethical
standards. Why? Because it is in my economic best interest to do my best
to make sure that our subscribers' customers are (1) happy with what
invaluement causes to be in the spam folder -AND- (2) happy with what
invaluement didn't cause to be in the spam folder and that remained in
the inbox. PERIOD. This is one of the benefits of not being
overly-entangled with conflicts of interest, due to NOT having economic
incentives that compete with those two goals.
Also, your defense of situations that involve a "conflict of interest" -
is basically to say, "but how do you know for sure that the person isn't
giving in to competing interests or is compromised? and how dare you
question their judgment!" (to summarize your arguments) - but you're
sort of missing the point and you're showing a lack of understanding
about professional ethics when it comes to conflicts of interest. For
example, if a judge were randomly assigned a case where one side of the
case was a close blood relative of that judge - that judge would recuse
himself due to a conflict of interest - and another judge would be
assigned to the case. So what you're doing is no different than that
same scenario - except where the judge refuses to recuse himself - and
then you come along and tell those who complained "how dare you question
that judge's ability to be impartial - you can't know for sure that he
will be biased" - Jim - that might be a little bit more of an extreme
example - but that is basically YOU on this thread.
In that hypothetical situation, if someone were to criticize me for
questioning whether that judge should be taking that case - and then
claimed that I was allegedly claiming that this judge was an unethical
person - BOTH stances are just incredibly offensive and show a childish
lack of understanding of professional ethics and maturity. That is
basically what you've done on this thread regarding my criticisms of
blacklists that accept payment for delistings and/or payments for
whitelistings. Just because I consider that a conflict of interest -
doesn't mean that I'm making any kind of specific claim that any
particular DNSBL is unethical, or run by unethical people. And as far as
your "you probably shouldn't criticize" - wow - that just an amazing
statement. It makes me inclined to want to reply in ways that wouldn't
be professional or nice. So I'll stop here and quit before I put my foot
in my mouth!
--
Rob McEwen
https://www.invaluement.com
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
