On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 11:10 -0400, Rob McEwen wrote:
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > We're not going down the path of judging blacklists based on whitelists
> > or certification services, or vice versa, do we?
>
> If the whitelist involves possibly questionable business practices
> (trying to reserve judgment here), then the information that Neil
> provided _should_ be factored into any such decision.
Wait, I was /not/ justifying emailreg.org -- actually not even talking
about it, but the certification service SSC as a sole base to overrule
any other listing.
Also, I was not arguing in favor or against BRBL being added to SA by
default. I do agree, that the whole picture should be taken into account
and carefully evaluated. However, I believe this isn't the best place
for that discussion.
> However, if it can be shown, after careful consideration, that everyone
> (or the SA powers that be) is OK with BRBL/emailreg.org business
> practices... that is one thing. But to sweep this under the rug is
> another very very sad and possibly unethical thing.
I did /not/, and I wasn't even touching the topic of possibly adding
BRBL to SA by default.
> > BTW, Neil, may I remind you...
> "red herring"
No. Just proving the point that no list is perfect, and no list may be
used to overrule all other listing techniques. After all Neil was
arguing that the listings are bad just because they are paying customers
to Sender Score Certified.
I might as well have said "grep this lists archive for complaints". Or
ask the SA bugzilla.
Anyway, even though the motivation for Neil to get them off of BRBL is
protecting customers, I am still happy to see this effort. Any listing
actually being removed is proof of the list being cleaned.
That's something we all benefit from.
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
