spamassassin-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob McEwen <>
Subject Re: J.D. Falk & Richard dispute (was J.D. Falk...)
Date Fri, 04 Dec 2009 15:55:16 GMT
I'm just changing the subject line because I find the previous subject
line to be extremely offensive and out of line.
As long as we have some spam filters which block some legitimate
confirmed opt-in senders (and/or legit organizations sending to their
unquestionable members), then that makes Return Path's business model
legitimate and helpful.

If anyone believes that Return Path's execution of this business model
ends up giving some spammers a "pass", then they should "shame" Return
Path by pointing out the most egregious examples that come along. But it
is understandable that a few undesirable situations are going to happen
every once in a while, no matter how good and ethical a job is done by
Return Path. So an egregious example that comes up every once in a while
is understandable. (just like it is understandable for a legit hoster to
unknowingly and occasionally sign up a spammer who deceived the
hoster--happens all the time!)

As long as Return Path reacts appropriately to such spammers, and as
long as they are not a constant revolving door for many spammers (or
anything close to that), then I don't see any problems here. I do
understand the argument that their business model might provide
incentives for them to be unethical in the short run just to drum up
extra sales, but this is balanced by the longer-term damage this does to
their reputation.

Amazingly, I deal with black- or "dark gray"-hat ESPs blacklistings on where the ESP is run by 20-something-year-old punk kids
who don't understand the long-term negative repurcussions of their
business practices and seem to think that they can spam with impunity as
long as they are CAN-SPAM compliant.

But, in contrast, Return Path is run by rational and mature adults who
"get it", imo. For the reasons stated, I reject the ridiculous argument
that their business plan makes them unethical. But I do believe that it
is helpful if/when the anti-spam community points out their most
questionable clients, if/when deemed appropriate. That will only help
inspire them to further tighten their standards and keep them
accountable. (actually, I do NOT personally see any current deficiencies
with them--but I'm just saying that this is a productive way of dealing
with any problems anyone has with Return Path that will have a tangible
good results for the industry as a whole.)

So, instead of insults, if anyone has a grip with them, please just
point out SPECIFIC examples. Over time, if you find many egregious ones,
that will speak for itself. Otherwise, I'd prefer to not be bothered
with this.

Rob McEwen
+1 (478) 475-9032

View raw message