Dear Claus,
Just a small answer...
Claus v. Wolfhausen wrote:
Dear Jose-Marcio,
You wrote:
/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./
I strongly recommend that you avoid insulting words as "company who is
part of the racket protection community", if you want to be taken
serious by me.
Your post just suggested people here doesn't know what they're talking about... So you looked for
the same kind of answer. So, let's talk about...
First, I'm not defending lazy/incompetent/... people. I'm just telling that people shall have a
chance. Accidents may happen, and if it's quite rare...
Also, I'd like just to talk the reasons your mail server rejected my message and how serious they
are. I suppose my message was rejected by your blacklist...
The rejection message, based on my domain name, points to two lists :
http://www.blacklistalert.org/?q=jose-marcio(_dot_)martins(_at_)mines-paristech(_dot_)fr
* list.anonwhois.net - well - they say our domain is using anonymous whois. Not sure, but either
way, how is this related to sending spam ???
Our domain isn't anonymous. Check our website and you'll see what we do. Do a "whois
mines-paristech.fr" and you'll get all information, name, telephone numbers, ... We're not anonymous.
* apews.org - welll. One MX of our domain (so, in ingoing only mail server) in a site different of
my one, is in the network 193.49.0.0/19, and all this is blacklisted as it seems it's a dynamic
range of IP addresses. But... we own the 193.49.22.0/24 subnet. And ALL addresses there have reverse
DNS declarations and NONE are dynamically assigned.
Either way, none of these reasons are related to sending spam.
I tried to go to your web site and, sure, you ask me to pay to be delisted. !!! No technical reason
can justify your list to reject our messages.
Now, I'm asking you : do you have any evidence of any of our networks sending
spam ?
Surely not !!! And ther's no reason for us to pay you even a single cent to be
whitelisted.
No, people at our domain aren't negligent/lazy/incompetent/... (as you said). Your technical staff,
probably yes.
Sorry, but I can't take you seriously...
Best,
JM
Sure my posting also just reflects an opinion, but it is an opinion that
is backed up by UCEPROTECT's broad userbase.
There is IMHO no reason for a discussion about how DNSBL's handle
delistings as long as that is explicit stated into the DNSBL's policy.
We are known to have the most transparent policies and our users exactly
know what they are doing and why they are doing it.
If our users would not agree to our policies, then ourlists would simply
not be used and then we would not have this discussion.
The standard procedure at UCEPROTECT-Blocklists is that a listing
automatically expires free of charge 7 days after we have seen the last
abusive action originating from a listed IP.
Different to that, the optional immediate expedited express delisting
requires manual work to be done, which is not offered free of charge by us.
In our jurisdication one is free to charge for services offered, so it
is neither racketeering nor extortion if we are charging listees for
freely chosen optional services.
No one is forcing listees to order an expedited express delisting. They
could simply fix their problem and wait for the free automatic expiration.
/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.../
You seem to defend people that were too negligent / incompetent / lazy /
whatever to secure their systems in first place.
Those that get listed in a DNSBL missed to do so and therefore they are
guilty for supporting spammers. It is their own fault, even if most of
them blame others afterwards.
I don't know of any jurisdiction where first-time offenders are explicit
"not subject to prosecution" by the law.
So why should a DNSBL handle first-time offenders like they would be
innocent people?
Anyway you made a point: It might be a good idea if we would punish
second-time offenders harder than first-time offenders.
I would have no problem to increase listing period by a factor 100 for
second-time offenders, but this was probably not what you wanted me to
do :-)
/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./
//
It is not necessary to know all the people in this list because logic
told me that there can't be many DNSBL-Operators here or they are really
inhonest.
Otherwise they would have seen and mentioned also a big "Conflict of
interests" at "commercial DNSBLs" in the
"draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07":
Commercial DNSBLs which charge for usage have real problems to list
their paying customers in situations where a big ISP which is customer
of their "commercial DNSBL" is also a big spammer hoster.
It was really interesting for me to see that this really big "Conflict
of interests" was not also published in the draft.
/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./
I found the January changes to the draft yesterday as our search
algorithm found an article from January 2011 on the listserver which
mentioned UCEPROTECT.
Earlier versions of this draft (V6 and older) were known to me and they
didn't contain such personal biased opinions like the new version.
I did therfore not see any reason to participate in this group earlier.
Drafts of "best practices" and also eventually resulting RFC's MUST
ALWAYS contain pure technical information only and if opinions are
mentioned in them, then they MUST BE neutral.
For this Draft this means it MUST either mention "Conflicts of
interests" for any kind of DNSBLs or it MUST NOT mention any at all.
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