[anti-abuse-wg] About whitelisting (was: UCEPROTECT DNSBL possibly abusive practice and RIPEStat Blacklist entries widget)

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