This sort of follows from the tirade in our AccuraScience listing post. It almost feels like a toy made by an angry teenager of some sort, said Dr. Justin T. Li (LinkedIn profile – do not view while logged in if you don’t want Justin to know) of us.

Consider this:

  • Not many angry teenagers have their email addresses listed on the PubMed as authors, so you already know you are talking to your peers. How would we know you exist otherwise if not by having received your messages?

ScientificSpam.net is a website and DNSBL run by volunteers with no formal organizational structure. Where it is located is of no concern, likewise for who the people are. There’s no point in subjecting anybody personally to abuse and harassment, which other DNSBL operators have witnessed aplenty in the past. On the other side of the table, there are significant financial interests in allowing the abusive operations to continue, and while we do not claim to know any of the spammers we list in person, we have plenty of experience dealing with spammers in general.

The measure of mainstream success of a DNSBL lies in whether third parties voluntarily choose to use its services as a part of their efforts to reject incoming spam. That decision is made by any mail server operator voluntarily and independently, and if our choices with regard to business structure, or rather the lack thereof, affect those decisions, then so be it; rest assured we have chosen deliberately. We do what we do in order to protect our own email systems from scientific spam, but we also made it a public service in case somebody else might find it worthwhile. If we fail to gain mainstream acceptance, that’s all right. We’re operating in a niche to begin with, anyway.

5 thoughts on “WHO ARE THESE CREEPS?

  1. Pingback: Nobleresearch.org | Scientific Spam

  2. Tom

    Hi, thanks for this useful and -scarce enough- very well documented blog. I just wish, I could subscribe to your RSS feed – unfortunately my RSS-reader insists that your newsfeed consists of XHTML instead of RSS. Manually reviewing the source gave the same result. Which is rather strange as WordPress uses to generate perfectly parseable RSS.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *