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

On 2021-03-04 18:16, Christian Teuschel wrote:

> Hi Elvis and Suresh, dear colleagues,
> 
> Putting exact numbers on how many operators are using UCEProtect is
> difficult, but through feedback from users, network operators and
> members we understand that it is in use and that the provisioning of
> this RBL on RIPEstat has value.
> 
> If I am reading the feedback in this discussion correctly, the 
> sentiment
> is leaning towards adding more RBLs instead of less and if that is the
> case we are going to look into how and when we can achieve this. Please
> let me know if that is aligned with your requirements/expectations.
> 
> Best regards,
> Christian

Hello, Christian,

Thank you for your response.

Let me express how I see this.

I've checked the content explanation of the Blacklist entries widget:

> This visualisation is based on data from different sources. The 
> blacklists were selected based on availability and data access 
> policies, and _are not necessarily the best representation_ of the vast 
> number of blacklists which currently exist.

I do understand the approach of remaining neutral and thank you for 
clarification that RIPE neither endorses nor supports UCEProtect 
practices. The intention to hear from the community while some providers 
still use this blacklist seems logical to me.

But I would disagree with usefulness to be the only criterion to be 
taken into consideration. Being an RIR, RIPE NCC and its tools 
inevitably are/may not only viewed in the light of usefulness but as a 
trustful and reliable source. In other words: we are neutral, but we 
trust this source, at least to some extend.  And I don't believe the 
RIR's goal of being viewed as simply representing the existing reality 
that some providers still use UCEProtect can be fully achieved.

RIPEStat, contrary to let's say MXToolbox that decided to keep 
UCEprotect for now ('We will watch this issue but will also continue to 
show UCEPROTECT listings as long as they are being used for email 
delivery decisions') 
[https://blog.mxtoolbox.com/2021/02/12/recent-spikes-on-uce-protect-level-3/], 
is not intended for email diagnostics specifically. (Or is it?)

Given that, if RIPE NCC and its community doesn't trust UCEProtect and 
if RIPEStat is not an email diagnostics tool, I'd say against keeping 
them in the widget.

--

Regards,
Kristijonas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20210304/39814a19/attachment.html>