Kelly Molloy <kelly(_dot_)molloy(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
But it eliminates the operator's ability to act in the best interest
of its customers--the sites who USE it. If someone pays me $50 and
my data tells me that IP is still spamming but I have to either
return the money or delist the IP anyway, who benefits?
Delist it. It gets auto-relisted 3 seconds later. Who gets hurt?
The spam-emitter, who paid for 3 seconds of deliverability. If the
spam-emitter is legitimate but ineffective, the cost gives him an
incentive to do better next time.
Not my users. It's selfish and ineffective.
Klaus seems to believe it's effective because it provides the
legitimate accidental spam-emitters more incentive to ensure that
their problem is fixed.
In any case, there's no inter-operability issue, so MUST or even
SHOULD is too strong.
I further question as to why we would deny a DNSBL a revenue model
derived from those causing the problem.
Because it's the wrong thing to do.
That's what we're arguing about.
It is probably sub-optimal in most cases. I don't agree that it's
always wrong.
Seth
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg