This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[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: </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 ]