|
|
 |
RE: [anti-abuse-wg] RIPE 57: Anti Abuse WG Minutes
-
From: "Thor Kottelin" thor@localhost
-
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 15:38:54 +0300
-
Organization: Turvasana Tmi – Safety Words, http://www.anta.net/sw/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Nisbet [ ]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 3:05 PM
> Cc: Thor Kottelin
> > 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.
Thank you for the clarification.
I now understand better what you mean. Of course, there will always be some volume of false reports due to human negligence.
On the other hand, the vast majority of users are probably not likely to report as spam something they have intentionally requested to receive. (Consider, for example, the odds of a working-group member reporting this list message as spam.) It must be almost infinitely more common for UBE senders to spuriously invoke excuses of the "TINS because you joined a list we bought" kind. Thus, the issue of false positive reports should not be given excessive weight.
--
Thor Kottelin
http://www.anta.net/
|
|
|
|
