In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Andy Dills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >I must be stupid, I'm not able to invent an explanation that doesn't >involve a profit motive.
I think it's very safe to assume that URIBL is not profit making and never likely to be so. >providing free service (in theory) to those who >generate 400k queries per day from dozens of individual nameservers around >the globe who then charge for spam filtering (we do not btw) Sorry, but if you charge anybody for access to mail accounts that are filtered in any way, shape, or form then you charge. You may not make it a value added extra but if your standard fee doesn't include some allowance for that service then you'll eventually run out of income. Just the fact that you're engaged in this discussion suggests the company has a spam filtering overhead which your customers pay for, saying they don't is like saying that your company doesn't charge customers for your wages simply because their invoice doesn't include a line especially for each employee's percentage of the fee. Seriously Andy, I understand you're annoyed about the situation and there is plenty of scope for discussion about SA policy, and the URIBL lists would probably be a more on-topic location for debates about the implementation, but whilst I'll happily read a wall of text this is sounding more like you want to complain to someone (anyone?) than anything else now. Kevin
