Mariusz Kruk wrote: > On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 23:20 +0100, Per Jessen wrote: >> >> I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how >> >> it works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham, >> >> and I wondered if I was doing something wrong. >> > >> > Yes, UCEPROTECT seems to be just a big scam. >> >> A scam?? You'll have to explain that one in a bit more detail. They >> provide the data free of charge. > > Scam - something set up only to make money in not-very-fair way. >
That would seem to describe quite a few businesses I can think of :-) [snip] >> As usual, it's not UCEPROTECT you should be swearing at, it's the >> people who use it. > > Yes, Them too. But the whole schema of UCEPROTECT operation stinks. > They add people to their blacklists with no clear rules standing > behind it. This is all you get: http://www.uceprotect.net/en/index.php?m=3&s=0 If I were to publish some of our internal data, you wouldn't get any clear information about how we collect it either. Such lists are a matter of trust and many people obviously trust UCEPROTECT. /Per Jessen, Zürich
