I don't really understand why anybody would use UCEPROTECT3 anyway. The first sentence of their web page says:
"This blacklist has been created for HARDLINERS. It can, and probably will cause collateral damage to innocent users when used to block email." http://www.uceprotect.net/en/index.php?m=3&s=5 On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 7:43 AM Chris via mailop <mailop@mailop.org> wrote: > On 2021-01-20 05:10, Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop wrote: > > > On one hand, UCEPROTECT is relatively aggressive, and their unlisting > policy is at least questionable. However, running > > a blacklist incurs costs in terms of server time and admin time, so if > they provide access for free, how should they > > recover their costs? > > On that note, let me tell you all a story: > > I (with assistance of others) wrote RFC6471 ("Overview of Best Email > DNS-Based List (DNSBL) Operational Practices") way back in 2012. It has > a section called "conflict of interest" where delisting for a fee (for > charity or otherwise) was considered a MUST NOT - due to its appearance > of extortion. > > At the time, only SORBS and UCEPROTECT were doing "fees", in SORBS case, > the fees went to charities. I was told directly by UCEPROTECT that the > fees were "beer money" for the volunteers, and NOT to recover costs. > > RFC6471 was in its final stages of discussion within the ASRG before > pushing upwards for IETF final editting and approval. UCEPROTECT took > great exception and attempted to extort me (and another author who > wasn't active at all at the time) personally to take that section out. > They turned off UCEPROTECT removals entirely, directed listees to > complain to me (and the co-author) personally, and everyone went away > for the weekend. > > The uproar was in the ASRG, and people like John Levine will remember it > well. The UCEPROTECT spokesperson was quite gleeful about the impending > mailbomb. > > I told them that if they didn't stop doing this by the Monday, I'd have > to report it to my Corporate Security and Legal departments as an attack > upon the company. > > There was a mad scramble on their side and they finally got it stopped. > > UCEPROTECT's customer base seems fairly small, most of it in Germany > where apparently they have secured some commercial contracts under some > sort of "buy German" doctrine. > > As a FYI, SORBS was also present in the conversation and acted entirely > professionally throughout the whole thing. A few months later SORBS > informed me that they had dropped their charitable donation request. > > And, oh, the mailbomb? Precisely 4 angry emails, of which every one of > which, once I explained the situation, encouraged to not give in to > UCEPROTECT. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop > -- =============================================== Russell Clemings <russ...@clemings.com> ===============================================
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
