-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 14:38 +0000, Gregory Heytings wrote: > > > > That's a fair point, there's no reason to not question their motives. > > > > I just personally don't see that it's a profit center for them. > > > > > > Just do the math. They blocked at least 100K IPs, because 1% of these > > > IPs sent spam in the last 7 days. If 0.5% of those 100K IPs decide to > > > subscribe to their whitelist, that's at least 50000 CHF / 24 months. > > > Which is I guess a rather comfortable income that largely exceeds their > > > costs. > > > > How do you know that's not the same situation as the PBL? Who says that > > it was uceprotect's decision alone to list 100K IPs? > >
First off, I'm subscribed to this list, there is no need to email me AND the list. > It's what they themselves say: they changed their formula two days ago, > and because of this thousands IP addresses that were not listed are now > listed. See http://www.uceprotect.net/en/index.php?m=12&s=0 . I know they did that change, I support it just like I thing the PBL is a good thing. Are you saying they should be prohibited from making that change? > > > Also, they seem to ignore that, while it is feasible for ISPs to > > > eradicate spam on their network, it is impossible for server providers > > > to do this: > > > > That sounds a lot like apathy. Even the banks are required to KYC. > > > > So what? If you use the bank analogy, it would mean pestering 1000 > customers because 1 customer got robbed. And then explain that they got > robbed because of apathy, because they did not install an alarm. But if customers keep getting robbbed, over and over in that neighborhood, then the right thing to do is...? > > > "If big providers like DTAG and Microsoft can so effectively prevent > > > that their customers are sending spam, why can your provider not also > > > do so? The simple answer is: The Abuse Departements of providers NOT > > > listed in our Level 3 are doing an excellent job, while those listed do > > > not. If your provider really wants to stop the excessive spam coming > > > from their ranges they would simply install some preventive measures." > > > > > > Honest customers can have their WordPress website hacked. > > > > Most don't, case studies have shown that it's apathy that causes most > > wordpress hacks. > > > > That's orthogonal to the point at hand. The point is that honest > customers can have their WordPress website hacked. This might indeed > happen because of apathy on the part of that customer, but a server > provider cannot do anything to detect customers that do not upgrade their > website regularly enough. The product they sell is a bare machine in a > datacenter. That is the problem, and it should not be a business model without consequences. It's not a stretch to say those bare metal machines are munitions, should they be allowed open access? Be careful what you ask for. - -Jim P. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEE3RmV4WutJ2KyCS2zPcxbabkKGJ8FAmAJkyUACgkQPcxbabkK GJ/Ouw//Urjf/dL0ERAruBba/muU1NanH2LgeAlUqMVPhc92klY+FT4xjZAA590a AgTDoNddF4W8eZGy6q12DMjIMS9oS1PuMnFQIMv6vAJ844Tmyu/3u7eBdUQTAhKd VLbA2Lm9VyBx+tuRHif4E40O5h41CY7GM/Cd49wXknWGPBHGOm6cB5mAvX1o0r9W cY4cEDtfweNWPS+cEtn/s3xiqXg/MsErbuE6rDt0+KLmOMmKmhO3Ty0nxFW5nuYg w9emH9Gv86VnYTgEkl4rieiC6Mtw0iOIBoHw0L75eHaY8aGKnCvxKsNjIpF2iMFi IsXcd4B2IRZA9+9XNffkRt5zvkQWSZT/7cCPIniNorNRQRIBj+sj7A0NvS+XrKkA ZG2GBL4PG4vd6qOoRnIBD5KuySA9Ec1AkiWpjlJeiWLJgcbP+OUmqXNCNsUTYFFM LxE9DBJGl18VFnjZjSzsr9y8mRXtCfaPKIfi0ocuepFcxr2/v16aT+H2oVfGXUBi sU5lR/xm4HXGWkYfNccFR8FnXIhj+SztkifXJxfh734PC2bEN80dwNNhd3nqQ//W 6j/SrVcuAeZbCP7JRh5sSvuIY8wxE97tSKzA1mgvNGFAZgaxxwDqLIub1mjpgJjx zMzvpDKf6vPJofxjeymaUQKH9aWf3L0wjsnTo6ihIbzphnIwbMs= =pG7g -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
