Talk:Mail Abuse Prevention System
WARNING to those who take this article seriously
No data on how many people subscribe to MAPS RBL that wasn't posted by "Paul Vix" himself on this page or any of it's sources. Nobody with a brain uses this blocklist to combat spam. Very little info floating around that wouldn't be incredibly easy to fake by one person. It's an old scam from 1998. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Updated info added to Controversy section
The spots I left a placemark do indeed have sources, but I've got to get off the computer for a while. I'm leaving the source pages open and coming back later to put them in the right places, sorry I slightly mixed up the format of the citation I added so far, will correct later. I'm also leaving this link here as a reminder, not sure how reliable a source it is yet and can't go through it at the moment. http://www.ifn.net/classic/rblstory.htm If anyone is familiar with the events I'm referring to feel free to fill in the citations yourself. I am not attempting to hijack the neutrality of the article or push an opinion - I'm going with all the info I've been able to gather so far. Move it to the talk page if you think its too incomplete.
I give up - data from MAPS themselves and those who track it's use all seem to be schizophrenic ramblings and unverifiable claims from the same few people. It doesn't look like anyone even uses it to filter e-mail anymore.
As of (very) roughly December 2009 MAPS and its associated lists have essentially ceased to exist, having been fully integrated into Trend Micro's Hosted Email Security suite. Many of the MAPS lists have ceased to exist in recognizable form.
From first-hand experience I can say with certainty that MAPS never took money to investigate or remove IPs from its lists. That was the tactic of SORBS and similar extortion sites, try not to confuse lists with similar names. (DUL vs DUHL) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I remove the sentence Companies have even gone bankrupt due to MAPS interference which was obviously written without knowing a single example of actual bankruptcy. Possibly, the only known case is MAPS itself :-/ ale (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Bad use of cites
The Criticism section makes poor use or outright misuse of its citations.
The first citation is a Slashdot article that was almost entirely an opinion piece. The opinions (and unverifiable statements within said opinions) in that article are presented here as facts. So I added Template:ASF.
The second problematic citation is a CNet article which states that, in one particular and unsourced test, only 2% of simulated spam from that test was filtered via RBL. The article takes the results of that test and extrapolates it to a universal generalization that RBL only filtered 2% of all spam. That simply does not accurately reflect the source material. (There are many potential issues with the validity of such a test, not the least of which being that the IPs in the RBL were easily discoverable prior to test, and a test could thus very simply be created to avoid sending spam through any of those IPs. That's not directly relevant; however, the WP article, if it is to include that information, should 1. specify that it is not in any way a general statistic, but only the result of a particular test, and/or 2. find the primary source of the test in question to assess test parameters and test design and results and conclusions.) So I added Template:Verify source which seems to be the best inline TP available for this.