On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Claus v. Wolfhausen <
c(_dot_)v(_dot_)wolfhausen(_at_)spamkiller(_dot_)uceprotect(_dot_)net> wrote:
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
fee.
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.
I used to run the MAPS RBL and now I run the Spamcop BL. Perhaps you've
heard of those?
Neither the Spamcop BL nor the MAPS RBL have ever charged for delisting. I
would never support a charge for delisting because it leaves the list open
to the accusation of false listings in order to generate revenue. SCBL
currently allows delisting on demand for a first listing and then an
increasing interval before successive self-delistings are permitted. (All
listing still expire after 24 hours with no new spam, but one can not
request delisting if an IP is delisted on demand and then relisted). To be
perfectly honest, I was really nervous about this when we implemented it,
and we were prepared to revert the change if it hurt our efficacy or
accuracy. It hasn't. It also decreased our support burden significantly.
Also, the CBL uses a similar model (although theirs was first) and is one of
the most accurate and useful blocklists in the world.
Based on my experience, I strongly disagree that pay-for-delisting is ever
necessary.
--kelly
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg