On Tue, 2019-01-08 at 12:04 -0500, Rob McEwen wrote: > On 1/8/2019 11:46 AM, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote: > > The same has been said about HTML emails...but that hasn't stopped > > folks from using them.;-) > > "apples to oranges" comparison - sort of like saying it is ok to > cheat on your taxes because some people drive 5 miles above the speed > limit.
Sometimes an "apples to apples" comparison doesn't quite exist. > > IMO "suspicious practice" is a wide brush. One might say the same > > about all DNSBLs being suspicious because there is a fair amount of > > ambiguity, mystery, and uncertainty. The reality is pay-to-play > > works (both at Barracuda and UCE Protect), like it or not, it is an > > extremely small entry point for entry level players and it provides > > a way for the operators of those BLs to know exactly who they are > > whitelisting. The only other solution would be an Internet > > Operators License;-) > > My "suspicious practice" label was almost a sarcastic understatement. > I was trying to be generous and forgiving. I don't think you're > understanding exactly how/why pay-for-play for a blacklist comes > across as an unethical extortion scam. Pretend you just got > blacklisted and your users are mad as hell about how much of their > outbound legitimate messages are currently being blocked. Then > pretend that the DNSBL that blacklisted you is willing to delist you, > but ONLY if you would just pay them money. But that's not how it really works. There is no extortion occurring, there is a reasonable entry fee...AND that fee is never requested until you cross a threshold. For everyone who says "extortion" is it not legitimate to question their motives for saying so? Let me be clear, the folks that I hear make the extortion claim, all provide competitive offerings or sell fee-based deliverability consulting services. O.o > Then think hard about all the motivations involved. For example, > suppose you had a security hole that was very brief, and less than 1K > spams went out - you had fixed it quickly - but now a lot more legit > messages are being blocked... and this has been happening for > days now. Then the DNSBL states that they don't care, and you'll stay > listed for almost another week until you pay up. That has never been my experience in almost 20 years of sending legitimate yet sometimes spammy email (think: prostate cancer discussions). I've hit their walls before, but they (Barracuda and UCE Protect) both worked with me and explained the barrier and the reason for the barrier to be lifted. If the barrier had been $1000, then sure I would have said "it's extortion", but it wasn't. It took years to build a good bulk sender reputation, and that reputation is tied to a named entity, and that named entity is verified by a credit card transaction. > Its like that, fwiw. Do you see that there might be a conflict of > interest in their blacklisting/delisting decisions? I see where there can be bad actors, but I have yet to see a bad actor operating a BL used by any relevant receiver. > (unfortunately, some will have to be on the receiving end of this to > actually know how this feels) I've been there, and it never felt like extortion. -Jim P. _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
