On Thu, 9 Jul 2015 18:07:07 -0400 Dianne Skoll wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 07:58:39 +1000 > Noel Butler <noel.but...@ausics.net> wrote: > > > +1 > > I'll throw my +1 in on this also. Almost by definition, the kinds of > organizations who buy into these certifications to get their mail > delivered are unlikely to be the kinds of organizations I want to > hear from.
For me it's mostly reputable organizations including the BBC, eBay, my ISP, my local supermarket and various companies I've bought things from. I don't get any spam at all in the return-path lists. > Just as SPF "pass" is a mild spam indicator nowadays, so is a "pass" > on these kinds of certifications. I don't doubt that there's some abuse, but I also find it hard to believe that the accuracy of the return-path rules isn't dominated by user behaviour. I would suggest that people evaluate them themselves on a rational basis. On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 09:06:58 +0200 Matthias Leisi wrote: > For the record, this is the reason why dnswl.org <http://dnswl.org/> > does not charge for listings (and we don?t call it certification): it > always leads to conflicts of interest. The chief difference that makes is that people cut DNSWL a lot more slack when it fails, and treat it less emotionally. Whilst I don't get any spam in RP, I do get spam in DNSWL. The big difference is that DNSWL has more hackable user accounts which in turn means that DNSWL is more likely to let through serious fraud and phishing spams when it does fail.
