From: "J.D. Falk" <jdfalk-li...@cybernothing.org>
Sent: Thursday, 2009/December/17 11:21
On Dec 16, 2009, at 8:35 AM, LuKreme wrote:
The fact is I *AM* their customer. The people writing them checks are not,
they're just their funders. Whitelist companies ha to convince admins to
use their list. The only way to do that is to have really really really
high quality lists that really do prevent spam delivery. If I don't use
their whitelist, and others don't use their whitelist, then their model
falls apart and they don't make money
Exactly what Return path has been saying (and acting upon) for years.
(We could debate whether Habeas followed that rule before we bought the
company, but it's impolite to speak ill of the dead.)
but no company is enlightened enough to realise this.
Heh.
<<jdow Lukreme seems to not have much of an engineering education
and zero experience with statistics. It is statistically impossible
to remove all spam perfectly and let all ham through perfectly. Perfect
is a goal you can never reach. If you obsess about it, you will find
yourself "round the bend" before long. All you can do is adjust the
ratio of missed ham to missed spam one way or the other. Where you
"slice" is pretty much up to you. What is the cost, the real cost in
lost customers or dollars spent, for a missed ham and for a missed
spam. If you can hit that balance point for minimum overall cost you've
done your job. If you sit and bitch about something not being perfect,
then you're not doing your job.
It is a good thing this issue was raised. It led to appropriate mass
check runs. I expect that will lead to saner scoring within the SA
framework. If not and it bites me, THEN I'll raise the issue again.
Does that seem fair?
{^_^}
