Al Iverson <aiverson(_at_)spamresource(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Esa Laitinen <esa(_at_)laitinen(_dot_)org>
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Joe Sniderman
<joseph(_dot_)sniderman(_at_)thoroquel(_dot_)org> wrote:
Yes, and this is a good thing. It encourages the provider of the data
(the DNSxL) to be loyal to the consumer of the data, rather than the
subject of the data.
There is potential for conflict of interest here, though: what if the
consumer of the data (i.e. paying customer) is also involved in spamming?
I think the conflict is avoiding by not taking money for delistings.
Consider: BigISP is a large user of DNSBL, and pays a lot of money to
DSNBL for that usage. BigISP gets a high-paying spammer it doesn't
want to remove, and tells DNSBL "If you list us, we'll stop using you
and stop paying you."
How is there no conflict of interest in that case? There's no charge
for delistings involved.
Charging for usage is a wholly separate animal. Either say "who cares,
let the spammers use my data" or have a policy wherein you reserve the
right to stop providing data to anybody at any time, and cut spammers
off.
Charging for _anything_ means you have customers who have financial
influence over you.
I'm not seeing an intersection of the two issues here.
Does this help?
Seth
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg