[anti-abuse-wg] About whitelisting (was: UCEPROTECT DNSBL possibly abusive practice and RIPEStat Blacklist entries widget)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] About whitelisting (was: UCEPROTECT DNSBL possibly abusive practice and RIPEStat Blacklist entries widget)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] About whitelisting (was: UCEPROTECT DNSBL possibly abusive practice and RIPEStat Blacklist entries widget)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Cynthia Revström
me at cynthia.re
Fri Mar 5 13:25:07 CET 2021
I personally feel like it's impossible to have a neutral list if you charge for delisting. Regardless of what might be the best solution, I feel like there is no way* to do this that isn't subject to abuse. Like if your business model is getting fees for delist requests, it's going to be close to impossible to keep it neutral. * Within reason, like you come up with ideas as proof of donation to a charity if you want to have a filter against people spamming. But that will always have some issues too. -Cynthia On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 11:59 Esa Laitinen <esa at laitinen.org> wrote: > Hi! > > Let me start saying that it seems to me that UCEPROTECT doesn't follow > their own stated policies. If it is so, it is a bad list. But I'd like > to discuss a principle here which I think I'd like to know opinions of. > > On 05.03.21 11:38, Cynthia Revström via anti-abuse-wg wrote: > > As others have pointed out, even purely on a technical level, they are > > not any kind of trustworthy source as paying to be delisted creates a > > very bad incentive for them. > > We have a situation where your IP address has landed in a DNSBL as > collateral damage. You're hosted in the same subnet with a spammer, for > example, so it is an escalation listing. > > Which one is preferable? > > 1. no chance of whitelisting your IP (as is the case with SORBS, and I > think many other DNSBL operators), so you either need to move out, or > convince the hosting provider to fix the issue > > 2. you can get a whitelisting done (possibly for a (relatively small) fee). > > Personally I'd prefer to have an option of 2. Having a small fee would > motivate me to talk with the hosting provider first, to get their act > together. > > > Let's forget how UCEPROTECT is messing up, let's discuss this as a > principle. > > > Yours, > > > esa > > > -- > Mr Esa Laitinen > IM: https://threema.id/2JP4Y33R or https://signal.org/install > Skype: reunaesa > Mobile: +4178 838 57 77 > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20210305/044a473d/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] About whitelisting (was: UCEPROTECT DNSBL possibly abusive practice and RIPEStat Blacklist entries widget)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] About whitelisting (was: UCEPROTECT DNSBL possibly abusive practice and RIPEStat Blacklist entries widget)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]