I agree...However, if those involved didn't show a propensity to engage in aggressive marketing policies and collusive recruitment practices, it would be a more legitimate organization in my mind. Centralized lists, such as this, maintained by pseudonymous entities are easily corruptible and need mechanisms put in place to check the imbalances....I'm not here to FUD the concept, nor those involved, but I do have concerns regarding the motivations that drive it. Spamming may be a problem, I agree....but collusive rings of anonymous thugs who promote, encourage, or otherwise condone reputation abuse is far more consequential in my mind....That's all.
I cannot understand what the problems with this in it's current state are.
From that paragraph of needlessly complicated words and pseudo-intellectualism (can I do it too?) I think I gathered that you are worried that this list will be abused for personal gain/grudges. In which case, there is a very simple fix - don't associate yourself with any of the people taking part in this list and their campaigns if you do not agree with the way the SMAS list (and by extension their campaigns) are ran.
This list isn't forum endorsed, and I doubt it will ever be. There are multiple campaigns available that are not run by Lauda, Lutpin or Yahoo; if you do not agree with them, the way that they think or the way they deal with things, stay away from them.
What mechanisms might we put in place to offset those risks? There has to be some form of remedy. Right?
Don't use the list? As far as I understand this list is no different to how one of the campaign managers involved with SMAS would simply deny a user from participating in their campaigns, instead just putting them in a list to save any issues with having to recheck. Obviously, if the list began to become more widely used throughout signature campaigns this could become more of a problem. Currently, it isn't.
Don't worry about it.