On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Andrew Kirch <trelane(_at_)trelane(_dot_)net>
wrote:
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.
ISPs have a clean up charge because they incur direct costs when their
customers spam, and it's set forth in the contract between the
customer and the provider and everyone agrees to it. The people who
own the IPs listed in a DNSBL don't have a contract with the operator.
If you want to recover from them, use the courts. A DNSBL operator
doesn't have standing to punish or fine anyone; they're not the
police.
--kelly
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg