NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Catch-22 for sending email
On 12/22/07, Dave Kristol <dmk-nnsquad@kristol.org> wrote:
> It would be nice if Comcast were a bit more transparent in this case. I'll be
> interested to get other ISPs' side of this.
I'm not an ISP, but I'm with Comcast on not giving out the address of
the complainer -- if it really was a complainer (they could have
accidentally hit the "Report Spam" button while your party e-mail was
selected).
The reason abuse desks generally do not give out the address of
complainers as it promotes something known as "Listwashing." Spammers
"wash" their lists by
removing the addresses of people known to complain. By removing these
names, they reduce the chance that all of their email will be dropped
at the distant ISP, and they also reduce the chance of getting a phone
call from their own ISP.
Some ISPs that do give out the addresses are suspected of facilitating
Listwashing by spamfighters, who then escalate their anti-spam efforts
upstream of that ISP.
You did get caught in a Catch-22. I would ignore this event, however,
if I were you. It sounds like a mistake on the part of one of your
invitees.
--
Robb Topolski (robb@funchords.com)
Hillsboro, Oregon USA
http://www.funchords.com/
[ If you don't know who complained, you can't effectively deal with the
situation when people inappropriately mark a message as spam. Once in a
blue moon someone will tag one of my PFIR or PRIVACY Forum postings as
spam with AOL. I'm signed up with a system at AOL where they send me a
notice of the "complaint" along with the original message. While they
delete most of the addressee information, enough timestamp and
other data remains in the message for me to easily detect which
user on the list complained -- and I immediately delete them.
Problem solved. Not providing any info about who complained is
unacceptable.
-- Lauren Weinstein
NNSquad Moderator ]