On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 09:12 +0100, Per Jessen wrote: > >> >> I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how > >> >> it works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham, > >> >> and I wondered if I was doing something wrong. > >> > Yes, UCEPROTECT seems to be just a big scam. > >> A scam?? You'll have to explain that one in a bit more detail. They > >> provide the data free of charge. > > Scam - something set up only to make money in not-very-fair way. > That would seem to describe quite a few businesses I can think of :-)
I agree ;-) Sorry, english is not my native language so I can't be more precise without causing further confusion about the definition itself. > [snip] > >> As usual, it's not UCEPROTECT you should be swearing at, it's the > >> people who use it. > > Yes, Them too. But the whole schema of UCEPROTECT operation stinks. > > They add people to their blacklists with no clear rules standing > > behind it. > This is all you get: > http://www.uceprotect.net/en/index.php?m=3&s=0 > > If I were to publish some of our internal data, you wouldn't get any > clear information about how we collect it either. Such lists are a > matter of trust and many people obviously trust UCEPROTECT. In other words - you don't need to know, you don't want to know, you won't know. But it's not only that. It's the whole package. Every respectable RBL has _clear_ rules of 1. Listing 2. Escalation 3. Delisting. In case of UCEPROTECT it's 1. We list whomever we want 2. We escalate whenever we want. And we don't give a damn whether we block only a so-called spammer or a whole range of innocent people's networks. Or even whole ASN-s. 3. Give us your money! The whole webpage says 'we are very good in blocking spam' but they don't write about possible false positives, about which every responsible RBL should inform. The problem is not in the fact of running RBL as such. The problem is in misleading people to use this service and using it to gain advantage over people forcing them to pay money. Let me compare it to a website. If I run a small private website on which I write, let's say 'Tom Cruise is a neonazist', noone will probably notice. But if I run a tabloid and I write something like that, I'll get my ass sued-off. UCEPROTECT's case is similar - they try hard to be perceived as a respectable company so that people use their blacklists. And therefore raising the pressure on listed people to pay for delisting. Oh, and BTW, http://www.uceprotect.net/en/index.php?m=2&s=0 See the 15th question's response. I don't know about you but for me 'anonymous circle of well-known people' seems kinda oxymoronic. And another BTW. I found a mailinglist discussion about UCEPROTECT in which you also took part (no, I wasn't looking for you :->) http://lists.swinog.ch/public/swinog/2008-January/002432.html Don't you think that manually adding someone to a blacklist (for free! *evil grin*) is tampering with it without clear rules? The guy with the autoresponder was surely causing some inconvenience but the proper response was to notify the list owner, not to add IP to the blacklist. -- [------------------------] [ k...@epsilon.eu.org ] [ http://epsilon.eu.org/ ] [------------------------]
