On 02/27/2011 04:46 PM, Kelly Molloy wrote:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Andrew Kirch
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.
But it eliminates the operator's ability to act in the best interest
of its customers--the sites who USE it. If someone pays me $50 and my
data tells me that IP is still spamming but I have to either return
the money or delist the IP anyway, who benefits? Not my users. It's
selfish and ineffective.
Perhaps, depends on the implementation. In any event, that *potential*
conflict applies to whitelists equally (if the IP starts spamming, but
the listee paid for a year... etc) and should be disclosed to users in
Joe Sniderman <joseph(_dot_)sniderman(_at_)thoroquel(_dot_)org>
Asrg mailing list