You can quote me: If the pope itself is sending me the cure to cancer but he doesn't have my consent then it IS spam and I would block it and depending on the way the domain manager handles it I would block the domain.
KAM On Wed, Dec 15, 2021, 11:40 Bill Cole < sausers-20150...@billmail.scconsult.com> wrote: > There has recently been a spate of odd spams to harvested addresses asking > hypothetical questions about domains' privacy practices. It turns out this > is a grad student enrolling human subjects in a study without informed > consent... The explanation is at > https://measurement.cs.princeton.edu/privacystudy/ and there is a list of > domains there which were created to run this maldesigned study. > > Many of the early batch compounded the consent problem with outright > fraud, claiming to be from people who do not exist. > > I am curious about what the SA user world thinks of such domains. My > personal opinion is that the grad student, his faculty advisors, and his > IRB should all be forced to find new careers and the domains should have a > null CNAME at the root forever. It appears that URIBL, SURBL, and Spamhaus > DBL have all noticed the domains unflatteringly, which I suppose > constitutes a more balanced consequence... > > A customer has expressed mild dismay at the concept that a fine research > institution should be "punished for doing research." I'm less attached to > Princeton than my NJ-based customer and (having worked in a NIH-funded lab) > less idolizing of the Ivory Tower in general. I have no difficulty > explaining my position, but I am rather surprised that I need to in 2021. > Am I missing something special that makes such research spam somehow not > spam? > > -- > Bill Cole > b...@scconsult.com or billc...@apache.org > (AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses) > Not Currently Available For Hire >
