I'm not sure that this line of discussion below is on-topic, so if I'm
wrong to follow up, please whack me:
This is a listing service that, for a setup up fee and so much per
month, will accept lists of IP addresses.
Not an accurate representation. It's an accreditation service which
researches, verifies, and accredits IP addresses which are listed in
the database. Senders do indeed pay a monthly fee for listing, which
is how it is supported so that we can make it available for free for
receivers to query. There is no set-up fee. There is an application
fee if the senders are not otherwise known to us, and fairly well,
through industry channels. That fee is used to do a background check,
check references, etc., as part of the accreditation process.
This was not said to diminish the value of your services. I was
attempting to clarify money establishes a history. Tracking the history
of an individual is a difficult task when working with IP addresses as an
identity. This adds to the cost of these services.
These types of IP based white-listing services existed well before SPF.
IADB is not, emphatically not, a whitelist. The information contained
in IADB about the IPs and the mail flowing therefrom is purely factual
and objective, with no value judgement made at all, nor expectation
about what querying sites will do with that information - use it to
accept mail, use it to reject mail, use it to figure out lottery
numbers - it's entirely up to the querying site.
Perhaps the relationship between paying and having a record with some
information added is objective and that the white pays for the black.
There must be trust in the address information, especially when there are
negative assertions applied. This is where this model becomes weakest.
Those causing trouble will not help in tracking their addresses. I did
not intend to imply any negative assertions about this type of service.
Again, the point I was attempting to make was the setup fees and payment
stream provides credibility to addresses associated with a customer's
claim. I would expect the setup fee pays for vetting this information. I
was only attempting to highlight difference between only using IP
addresses and the benefits of using domain names. The major benefit is
from maintaining history without tracking IP addresses.
What I am sure has been lost in this conversation, is that the Sender-ID
Mailbox Domain is not adequately validated to be used as a basis for
negative assertions. The authentication of CSV, although weak by most
security standards, is significantly stronger at establishing an
accountable domain identity.
Both CSV and SPF allow the sender to recommend a service. ; )
-Doug