Quote from: EcuaMobi on January 24, 2018, 02:00:58 PM

Quote from: minifrij on January 24, 2018, 01:01:14 PM

I could get behind this solution if signature campaign managers could agree on it

I've PM'd them asking for their opinion on this proposed solution.

I think that this would be mostly useless. The majority of the spam comes out of the altcoin bounty campaigns, and usually those "managers" just decide to pretty much accept everyone (without negative trust), without caring about quality. They could use SMAS, they could actually vet people, but they don't. I think that's the reason some decided to apply negative trust, as those bounties (usually) don't allow negative trusted users.

I don't really have a stance for whether spammers deserve negative trust, as I could argue easily for both, but I think leaving negative trust for managers/services who run campaigns that produce a lot of spam might be a better first step, as it encourages the managers/services to actually try.

Quote from: Joel_Jantsen on January 24, 2018, 03:14:46 PM

Quote from: Lutpin on January 24, 2018, 02:14:59 PM

--snipe--

The only problem with that approach is, not many campaign managers follow SMS restrictions.

One does not need to use SMAS lists to run a spam free/low spam campaign.