-----Original Message----- From: anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:anti-abuse-wg- bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of lists@help.org Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 8:24 PM To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
I am aware of this but it simply uses another unidentified term "spam." Using one undefined term to define another undefined term is not a standard.
Email spam is universally defined as unsolicited bulk email. It must be extremely rare for someone to join an anti-abuse *working* group without knowing basic concepts such as this one.
I think some people posting large signatures for a 3-word reply is spam so should they be blacklisted because I have that opinion?
Yes, I think you should publish a DNSBL consisting of IP addresses from which people have sent email messages that contain signatures. That would help you realise that a DNSBL only becomes relevant if server administrators find it useful and that generalisations such as 'blacklist operators are $this-and-that' are gratuitous. -- Thor Kottelin http://www.anta.net/