On 3/1/2011 2:39 PM, Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote:
Normal customers will subscribe (let me use the word subscribe instead
of pay) in order to use the DNSxL to help him fight spam. Spammers
will subscribe, probably, to check if him is blacklisted.
This means, the DNSxL list provider shall tell what's the intended
good usage of the list.
I think that it is clear given the length of this discussion that there
is not a clear consensus among DNSBL operators, and that the text should
be removed from the draft. Furthermore, I quite honestly don't care if
DNSBL operators extort spammers. (I am not currently operating a DNSBL,
and am now considering the extort spammers and those who host them
business model). As long as this is clearly disclosed in the listing
policies, there is no ethical problem. Spam is theft, and we must
remember that this is the problem. ISP's typically now have a clean up
charge in their TOS/AUP (the viability of collecting this I will leave
to discuss another day), there is no ethical reason why a DNSBL should
not have the same policy. Charging end users to avoid spam is
profiteering off of crime. Better to charge the criminal scum, and
those who host them.
Andrew
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg