On Wed, 16 Apr 2014, Matthias Leisi wrote:
(FTR & transparency, speaking for dnswl.org - a whitelist without
paid-for-listing model, but with a pay-for-heavy-use model)
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Greg Troxel <g...@ir.bbn.com> wrote:
b) meet the following transparency and responsiveness rules
i) Have a page on the SA wiki which points to the way to
complain.
abuse@<easily identifiable, stable and unique domain> should be available.
Wiki and docs are fine, but should not be needed if possible.
Oh my god, yes! Sites who force you to go through a web page rather than
having a working abuse@ address are saying "we really don't want you to
report abuse to us."
ii) On the main web page of the whitelist, have a prominent link
about how to file a complaint about receiving spam from
whitelisted entities. This must be sufficiently prominent that
the number of people who fail to find it is essentially zero,
ACK.
i.e. their abuse@ mailbox. :)
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ten-millimeter explosive-tip caseless, standard light armor
piercing rounds. Why?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 days until the 239th anniversary of The Shot Heard 'Round The World
