I would have to agree. The measures to ensure the integrity of the users are thorough, and the price is minimal. Having gone through the process of becoming a whitelisted sender (.edu), it made me feel confident endorsing and using their white/blacklist.
And this is from someone who has been on their blacklist because our students fell victim to a phishing scam. They do a good job of managing complaints, as well as dealing with removal requests...they are a model for what larger ISP and free e-mail providers should follow. Mike On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Marc Perkel <m...@perkel.com> wrote: > > > Rob McEwen wrote: > > Bob O'Brien wrote: > > > But I have to say (and this is just my personal opinion) that all the > people shouting "conspiracy!" (even if joking about it) may have done > irreparable harm to the potential for corporations (not just Barracuda) > supporting this community in the future. > > > Bob, > > 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 > behindemailreg.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.) > > However, Bob... regarding your comment above, you have your own self (& > associates) to blame. The things that have made people suspicious were > real and noteworthy and did NOT take a nutcase to jump to harsh > conclusions. Then, when these things were pointed out across several > threads spanning many, many months--it was at first like pulling teeth > to get answers. Finally, the answers that did eventually come forth were > initially somewhat cryptic and evasive, which only pored gasoline on the > fire, imo. > > If it were not for that off-list vote of confidence from someone I > greatly trust, I'd still have lingering and suspicious questions. (or > maybe not since I starting to fatigue on this subject.) > > > > > I think people on this list have a bad feeling about paid for lists perhaps > because of lists like UCEProtect that runs a really sloppy blacklist and > wants money to get delisted. I see no reason that everything has to be free. > Ultimately we all have to eat and we do something to make a living. > > There are people in the world who are both ethical and financially > successful. So if someone is toing something right and making a buck at it I > don't have a problem with that. > > And - getting back to the technology issue, the list seems to work well. I > was just wondering how the list was working for other people here? > >
