[anti-abuse-wg] UCEPROTECT DNSBL possibly abusive practice and RIPEStat Blacklist entries widget

Hi.

Let me disagree on this misconcept of "endorsement" or "reference" or
"reporting".

There are **plenty** blacklists out there.

RIPE reports specifically UCEPROTECT and SPAMHAUS.

This kind of usage and reference by RIPE empirically
supports/endorses/make those as a reference. (or a troll feeded)

If ripe community dont feel it that way then, imo they should either:

a) add more blacklists checks and not only those (in order to avoid
discrimination to other blacklist operators)

or

b) remove blacklist reports at all, so it keeps a neutral position on
this.

btw, how many of you already got fresh allocations from RIPE that were
blacklisted from some of those, and had challenges to start using those
and/or get them scrubbed raise the hand.

cheers
/nuno


On Wed, 2021-03-03 at 12:16 +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 11:57:13AM +0100, Esa Laitinen wrote:
> > This indeed puts the uceprotect in a different category in my
> > books.
> > Please forget what I wrote earlier in this chain.
> 
> I do have my own opinion about uceprotect (and it's not favourable),
> but
> we do not need to actually discuss "do we as community like their
> service
> or not" or "do we endorse it or not".
> 
> The RIPE-Stats-Plugin provides *reporting*, and if someone's IP space
> ends
> up on a blacklist that is actually used by people, it is useful
> information
> to be told about it.  
> 
> This is why uceprotect is listed there, not because "RIPE endorses
> it".
> 
> Gert Doering
>         -- NetMaster