On 17/03/09 5:08 AM, "Matus UHLAR - fantomas" <uh...@fantomas.sk> wrote:
> I still think it's much better to report them to habeas for spamming... > COI means confirmed opt-in. If you did subscribe, it is NOT spam whether > you want it or not. Isn't it good to have someone who will sue spammers? Matus, Habeas had not used that paradigm since the end of 2003. Clients pay to become programme members, and we hold them to various standards: Infrastructural, Performance, and Privacy & Policy On 17/03/09 5:37 AM, "Aaron Wolfe" <aawo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Besides the questionable way some marketers use COI (or, the way users > don't seem to like getting what they asked for, depending on your > viewpoint), the specific problem with the Habeas rules in SA is that > the high scores sort of assume Habeas is correct about a message being > COI etc, when in fact Habeas is often wrong. Habeas no longer exists. Return Path purchased their assets in August, which then began a gargantuan effort to migrate the various services onto our systems. As to performance of Safelist, I have said here repeatedly if you are dissatisfied with the performance, by all means downgrade the score, and by all means **REPORT THE ISSUE** (and keep your eye on the SA scoring, once we have improved, please give us a fair shake to get back into good standing with you!!). We take these things very seriously by suspending and firing clients, as we do with our Certified list. My team's job is to parse out problem clients, and deal with them. I disagree with Safelist being "often wrong". According to our volume measurements at Senderbase, and two anonymous webmail services, there were 289,652,703 mails that went over Safelisted IPs in the last 30 days (this figure is very understated due to some technical issues on our end we aren't seeing everything from a volume standpoint). Since February 17, we have received less than 20 complaints. > The scores are just too trusting. > > Reporting a message is fine but its not "better" than preventing the > spam in the first place, is it? > Best to tune the rules down and also report mistakes. Agreed. Now, as to the specifics of Ning.com: Like every other social network (we certify all the majors), Ning is now on the 419ers' RADAR. They are slipping in and suffering the problems spammers bring. They are both proactive, and in my opinion, rapidly reactive to problems brought to their attention. If you spot spam coming off their systems, send it to ab...@ning.com and copy us in at the address listed on the wiki. We want to hear about it, and we want to help Ning put a stop to this nonsense. -- Neil Schwartzman Director, Accreditation Security & Standards Certified | Safelist Return Path Inc. 0142002038
