ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Asrg] Rough consensus on pay to delist

2011-03-02 13:47:30
On 3/2/2011 2:01 PM, Joe Sniderman wrote:
On 03/02/2011 12:22 PM, Chris Lewis wrote:
On 3/2/2011 11:29 AM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Andrew Kirch wrote:
Concur here.  I think Claus makes a valid point in that expedited
service might require expedited cost.  I am also concerned that this is
in direct contradiction of existing DNSBL practices, such as SORBS.
Umm it does?
  (FYI SORBS has not imposed any fines since Oct 12, 2010 and the policy
on the website has been updated to indicate there is no such thing as
the SORBS fine any more)
Indeed, I think that this an important point.  Even though a DNSBL has
ceased using the practise, it's still used as an argument as if it was
still being used, and in many places still used as a reason to
avoid/disparage the DNSBL.
True, unfortunately.  On that one hand, that shows how once adopted, its
hard to ever make the "bad smell" go away, but on the other hand, the
prevalence of using outright false information to disparage DNSBLs, and
how event those with no axe to grind can so often fall for the
misinformation.

Err, are you accusing me of some sort of personal attack against
Michelle or SORBS?  I don't believe that there's a bad smell there at
all.  After being harassed and sued by a spammer, that legal defense
fund SORBS was running came to my aid big time.  I for one support these
measures.  DNSBL operators open themselves to huge legal liability, even
when protected by 47 USC 230 (at least in the United States).  Denying
them _ANY_ method of revenue generation is quite frankly wrong, and THAT
leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  Quite frankly I believe the entire
section is far outside of the scope of a BCP document.

Andrew
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg