Per one of their admins when I asked what the whitelist message meant...
"Thank you. We're not reporting any problems. We're just
cleaning our lists of unneeded rules.
"Our lists have gotten too cumbersome and are deleting sites
that don't generate spam complaints.
"Sorry, should have made the initial messager clearer. If we
are getting false positives for your site we would add
you back in."
So, we who are being deleted from the whitelist are generating too
few complaints to warrant inclusion on their whitelists.
On Thu, May 04, 2000 at 04:47:41PM -0400, John R Levine wrote:
> > anyone else see this?
> Lots. The message meant exactly what it said, although for some reason many
> people who didn't read it closely leapt to wrong conclusions.
> WebTV does a lot of spam blocking. Whenever they get a complaint about spam,
> they tend to block the site where the spam came from. Except that some sites
> tend to provoke false alarms for one reason or another. So they have a
> "whitelist" of sites that they know are well behaved and about which they
> will ignore spam complaints. I believe that abuse.net is on their whitelist,
> for example.
> All that their message said was that as of Monday, you'll no longer be on
> your whitelist. As their message said, this DOES NOT mean that you'll be
> blocked, blacklisted, or anything else. All it means is that if they get
> complaints about you in the future, they might block you rather than ignoring
> the complaints.
> Honestly, I don't understand why they bothered to send out the notice, since
> their blocking practices are their own business, and as we've seen, many
> trigger-happy sysadmins insisted it on misreading it as some sort of attack.
Agreed. If they'd not said anything, I know I certainly wouldn't have
noticed. 8^) But then again, most of the lists I server run on auto
/ \__ | Richard Rognlie / Sendmail Consultant / Sendmail, Inc.
\__/ \ | URL: http://www.gamerz.net/rrognlie/
/ \__/ |
\__/ | *BSD and Linux: The Ultimate Windows NT Service Packs