John Levine <johnl(_at_)taugh(_dot_)com> wrote:
I'm seeing no support at all for "Claus'" contention that we should
change the language about pay to delist in DNSBL practices draft.
I'm afraid I must disagree with John Levine's call of consensus. :^(
If anyone else agrees that we should change it, please say so now,
otherwise I think we will consider the discussion over.
I do see rough consensus that charging for de-listing is a bad idea;
but that's not what the current text says.
I have previously expressed discomfort with the language, because
even if I think the UCEPROTECT practice is a bad idea, it would not
follow that charging for a manual operation is always bad, nor would
it follow that manual operations should be discouraged.
With Claus now claiming that this business model actually works,
I am even more uncomfortable saying it MUST NOT be used.
It seems to me that, although the flame-content is higher than I
would wish, useful information _is_ being exchanged here, and further
discussion is warranted.
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg