Claus,
Claus v. Wolfhausen wrote:
This is the official statement from the maintainers of the
UCEPROTECT-Network
about this section of your RFC - Draft:
We recommend that you remove the complete last sentence, because it
reflects
only your personal opinion, how a DNSBL should be operated.
The same way as all you've said is only a personal opinion coming from a company who is part of the
"racket protection" community.
Just to counter your arguments, there are many alternative ways to "educate people" without
"racketing them" : you can make harder and harder to be whitelisted people being frequently
blacklisted. You could accept to remove immediately people being blacklisted for the first time or
people who wasn't blacklisted in the last one or two year period...
Otheway, your phrase : "That is a really important point, which is often not seen by people which
had never run a public DNSBL." and mainly "often not seen by people which had never run a public
DNSBL.". Well, you surely missed a point as you surely don't know who are all people in this list. I
consider this a sign of useless arrogance against all of us.
Either way, discussion about this draft took a very long time. You could be there while this was
discussed. Where were you ? You are free and welcome to participate on all discussions in this list.
Cheers,
José-Marcio
Since you claim the document would be intended to provide guidance to
DNSBL operators so that they may be able to identify what features users
would be interested in seeing as a part of a high-quality, well-managed
DNSBL,
it is not your business to tell the operators they "MUST NOT" charge
delisting or "faster handling" fees.
The recommendation that such DNSBLs which are charging for removals
should not be used is a personal opinion and as such it has also no place
in a guidance which is addressed to DNSBL operators.
The main purpose of a DNSBL is to prevent spam to get delivered to the
users of said DNSBL.
Delistings at UCEPROTECT-Network are free of charge and they happen
fully automatic 7 days after we have seen the last abuse originating from
listed IPs.
For those that want a manual intervention (expedited express delisting)
a fee is charged here.
People tend to ignore their faults and most are unwillig to learn from
their
faults if it has no or only minor consequences.
This can be shown by checking the histories of many listees at blocklist
that allow free self-removals like the PSBL.
It is not a big deal to find IPs that were removed 40 to 50 times per year
and got relisted at PSBL after 2 or 3 days again.
We at UCEPROTECT-Network made the expirience that people which did
not care about the security of their systems and got abused by spammers
learned an unforgettable lesson by dealing with our removal procedures:
NEVER GO ONLINE AGAIN WITH AN UNSECURE SYSTEM.
They would not have learned that lesson if they would have been able to
escape from ourlists immediatley free of charge like they did from others.
New listings of formerly listed static IPs are really rare at UCEPROTECT.
So UCEPROTECT was able to educate those former listees to take care
of their systems next time, which clearly prevents futher spam form those
systems.
That is a really important point, which is often not seen by people
which had
never run a public DNSBL.
Regards
Claus von Wolfhausen
Technical Director
UCEPROTECT-Network
http://www.uceprotect.net
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
--
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg