<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /></head><body style='font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif'> <div class="pre" style="margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">On 2021-03-04 18:16, Christian Teuschel wrote: <blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0">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</blockquote> 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: <blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0">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.</blockquote> 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') [<a href="https://blog.mxtoolbox.com/2021/02/12/recent-spikes-on-uce-protect-level-3/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://blog.mxtoolbox.com/2021/02/12/recent-spikes-on-uce-protect-level-3/</a>], 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</div> </body></html>