[anti-abuse-wg] RIPE 57: Anti Abuse WG Minutes
Brian Nisbet brian.nisbet at heanet.ie
Wed May 6 14:04:50 CEST 2009
Thor Kottelin wrote: >> Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 14:01:25 +0100 (IST) >> From: "Brian Nisbet" <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie> >> To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net >> Reply-To: brian.nisbet at heanet.ie > >> RIPE 57 Meeting Dubai >> Anti-Abuse Working Group >> Wednesday, 28 October 2008, 13:30 > >> There was a comment that there was currently a spam initiative from Microsoft and some ISPs to bring those who are spamming to court. They are >> also making a database of spammers. There is also a German >> initiative to create a âwhite listâ because people sometimes want advertising and this allows companies to send advertising and not have it >> considered as spam. >> Brian said that he had seen initiatives like this and hopefully it will >> reduce instances of phishing. He added that the challenge is that people >> are quick to report spam and this affects genuine advertisers. > > Thank you for posting the minutes. > > There is one thing I have difficulty understanding: for which definition of "genuine advertisers" are such advertisers affected by having (their?) spam reported? Certainly my meaning here refers to advertising that people have requested, rather than UBE. One issue that companies see is that users sign-up to newsletters or the like, then forget they have done so and hit the "report spam" button when something drops into their inbox. If such spam reports are made, then the sender's emails will be blocked by the service provider and legitimately requested email will not reach its destination, thereby affecting the relevant sender's business. Does that clairfy it at all? Thanks, Brian.