On 03/02/2011 02:47 PM, Andrew Kirch wrote:
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?
Quite the contrary!
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.
Yes, I am somewhat (probably lots more to it than I know about) familiar
with that chain of events. My point is that despite the fact that you
clearly have no axe to grind, no hostility or personal issue against
SORBS, that the FUD (namely that SORBS still charges a fine) spread by
those who do seems to have rubbed off on you as well. (unless I am just
misreading you)
Despite the fact that SORBS stopped charging a fine, its common
knowledge that they do charge a fine. Ie, common knowledge in this
regard is wrong.
*That* is the bad smell that doesnt go away. If a DNSBL is willing to
live with that bad smell, I dont think its anyones place to try to stop
them from doing so.
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.
Agreed absolutely. That said, there is a lot of area between best
practice and worst practice. As a *general* rule, paid delisting is
probably somewhere in the middle of the road on that broad range.
Quite frankly I believe the entire
section is far outside of the scope of a BCP document.
I would tend to agree, but not because of any of the specifics of paid
delisting. Business model in general doesnt make sense to cover in a
BCP. That said, even with it included, i think the current text is good
enough.
--
Joe Sniderman <joseph(_dot_)sniderman(_at_)thoroquel(_dot_)org>
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg