On 2/27/2011 4:33 PM, Joe Sniderman wrote:
On 02/27/2011 04:01 PM, John Levine wrote:
I'm seeing no support at all for "Claus'" contention that we should
change the language about pay to delist in DNSBL practices draft.
If anyone else agrees that we should change it, please say so now,
otherwise I think we will consider the discussion over.
I agree that it should be changed but not removed entirely. Change it
from a "MUST NOT" to a "SHOULD NOT" perhaps.
Concur here. I think Claus makes a valid point in that expedited
service might require expedited cost. I am also concerned that this is
in direct contradiction of existing DNSBL practices, such as SORBS. I
further question as to why we would deny a DNSBL a revenue model derived
from those causing the problem.
Asrg mailing list