[anti-abuse-wg] 2010-08 New Policy Proposal (Abuse contact information)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2010-08 New Policy Proposal (Abuse contact information)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2010-08 New Policy Proposal (Abuse contact information)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Michele Neylon :: Blacknight
michele at blacknight.ie
Wed Nov 10 12:09:23 CET 2010
Um ok, but what has that got to do with greylisting??? Mr. Michele Neylon Blacknight http://Blacknight.tel Via iPhone so excuse typos and brevity On 10 Nov 2010, at 11:06, "Tobias Knecht" <tk at abusix.com> wrote: >>> Some ISPs in Europe are already using this as a greylisting reason. >> >> I assume you're referring to email? > > Right. > >> If so, why is that a problem? > > If you want to judge on the existence of the IRT if somebody is doing > abuse handling or not you should not make the IRT mandatory. That was > Leo Vegoda saying. > > As soon as people will decide to do so and add the existence of an IRT > to their reputation metrics, there is pressure and pushed by this > pressure people will create IRT Objects, but not with the intent to do a > good abuse job, but with the intent of deliverability. > > So imo this is no reason to make the IRT not mandatory. > > Thanks, > > Tobias > > abusix.org >
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2010-08 New Policy Proposal (Abuse contact information)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2010-08 New Policy Proposal (Abuse contact information)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]