On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Claus v. Wolfhausen
TRBL Support wrote:
As a counterpoint, I run a public DNSBL and I agree with the choice of
wording used in the BCP draft. Watching the history of blacklists over
the years, few things have caused more angst and accusations than
requiring a delisting fee. Even SORBS has stopped requiring such a
I never heard of the TRBLSPAM so it is very like to be not widely known. As a
consequence there will not be many users and not many removal requests.
If we at UCEPROTECT would have to handle up to 50 removal request per day,
then we could offer that free of charge, of course.
Unfortunateley we would have to handle between 40000 to 50000 requests per
day, if we would offer immediate removals free of charge.
In UCEPROTECT's early days (August 2001) the project was run on a sub domain
of admins.ws and the blocklists had public "remove me" Buttons, where listees
could remove them self.
As Spammers were beginning to abuse that with automated scripts we did secure
it with a captcha. Then Spammers did hire persons in India and China to
remove their listings manually.
That was the point where UCEPROTECT has chosen to no longer allow "self
removals" and then everyone was required to contact us to get removed before
Here's a thought: Your business model is broken. You are charging
listees, when instead you should be charging your blacklist users
enough to cover your operating expenses. This is like giving away an
automobile for free, but then charging people after the driver hits
them. It does not make sense to me.
I think if you are charging people to get removed, you are taking
advantage of misfortune. I understand what you mean about CAPTCHAs
being defeated and so forth, but charging listees a fee is not the
only way to address this issue, nor is this a fair methodology to
those who are not bad guys.
trblspamtrap dnsbl: http://www.trblspam.com
simple, spamtrap driven, easy on, easy off
Asrg mailing list