Seth Breidbart <sethb(_at_)panix(_dot_)com> wrote:
There is a way around the legal issues. Have a "de-list me" page,
just like the CBL does. The key is that rather than pretending the
rentry under dispute doesn't exist, you mark it "de-listed at owners
request."
Recipients can then choose what to do.
Then someone listed and marked that way, who gets blocked, can still
sue over the original listing.
... which may (or may not) have been negatively listed.
The original listing can be positive, negative, or a request to "not
list me". The key is to ensure that the entries which are "not-listed
at owners request" are *not* always originally a negative listing.
This means that when someone sees those entries, there is no automatic
assumption that the owner was behaving poorly.
e.g. Blacklists can list whole swaths of unallocated addresses as
"not listed at owners request".
The blocks 29/8, 30/8 are still unallocated, I think. Blacklist
maintainers can use the public statement that those addresses are
unallocated as a request to NOT have them in the list. There's no
reason to blacklist them, as no one should be using them, right?
Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg