[anti-abuse-wg] Spam FAQs need revision, was 2011-06 New Policy

On 19 Dec 2011, at 14:16, russ at consumer.net wrote:

> >But that isn't any reason to tar all spam filtering with the same brush.
> 
> I never said all abuse lists are bad or are run poorly, some of them are run very well and provide tremendous benefits and I use them.  I am just saying they need to live by the same standards as everyone else.

And what standard would that be?

DNSBLs provide a free service

Nobody is obliged to use them

And if a DNSBL is badly run then mail admins shouldn't use them .. 


> 
> I have dealt with the abuse desk you ran before if you remember me.  I tried to respond to an e-mail from the network you ran and it was blocked.  Your abuse desk told me other people on my netblock were spammers and I was supposed to go to my hosting provider and somehow make it stop.    I had no idea (or power) to do anything about it and I had no idea what anyone else on the netblock was doing.  When I ask for proof of the claims you never sent anything or explained further (although you did unblock me).  These are some of the crazy stunts pulled by abuse departments that has no basis in law or common sense.


Because of course we all make massive amounts of money from our abuse desks and running a network and protecting it from scumbags is free .. 



Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions ♞
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
ICANN Accredited Registrar
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://blacknight.biz
http://mneylon.tel
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
US: 213-233-1612 
UK: 0844 484 9361
Locall: 1850 929 929
Facebook: http://fb.me/blacknight
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845