I'm joining the bandwagon late it seems. Please note my opinions do not
in any way reflect the opinions of my Employer.
The ISP I work for went through major expansion of our network in the
last 2 years. We got our own address space, issued many of these to our
ADSL customers and had to also, of course, self-manage the network. Very
quickly UCEPROTECT had us listed because we blundered. We didn't pay. We
saw how fruitless this would be, so we fixed the issue by installing
spam filtering on port 25. This worked and now only the spam filter
server gets listed every now and again, which we're happy to leave for 7
days. We tell our customers to use port 587 with Authentication. As a
result the majority of the mail reaching our filter system is blocked as
spam and only a small amount of actual spam leaves the network.
Despite being on the "receiving end" of UCEPROTECT I feel no ill towards
them, except as a reminder of how easy it is for poor technical
implementation to result in spam being sent out. It was our fault.
While I don't like the idea that UCEPROTECT makes money from express
delistings, I feel this is outside the scope of RFC and technical BCP
documents. Yes, when a company makes money by "extortion" (and I use
this term VERY loosely here) its a damned good idea to make their
listing criteria publically available. However I don't see this being
relevant except for the case of legal proceeding, again, IMHO outside
the scope of the document being discussed.
--
__________
Brendan Hide
Mobile: +27 83 448 3867
Mobile: brendan(_dot_)cell(_at_)swiftspirit(_dot_)co(_dot_)za (plain text only
please)
Web Africa - Internet Business Solutions - http://www.webafrica.co.za/?AFF1E97
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg