On Thursday, 22 of April 2010, Jared Hall wrote: > It takes two to tango.
But takes just one to spoil the fun. Trust me, I do ballroom dancing :-) > 1) If your recipient's Email server didn't use UCEPROTECT, you would not > In terms of extortion, I don't see any liability whatever. > Level 1 addresses auto-expire. If you want that expedited, you pay. > Sounds fair to me. > > Level 2 and Level 3 addresses require intervention by the sender's ISP. > A fee is charged, presumably to cover the cost of scanning netblocks to > verify the problem has been resolved. Not altogether an easy thing to do, > and a MAJOR cost factor, as also indicated at SORBS. Problems exists > elsewhere, as well. RFC-Ignorant listings come to mind. > > Nobody is forced to use UCEPROTECT. For those that do, see 2,3, and 5 > above. Solutions abound. In your case, item 6 seems most appropriate. This is only part of the truth. First of all - anyone is free to use anything for policing their SMTP servers as long as he does it conforming to relevant RFC's. But anyone is free to have his own views on that so I'm just stating my point of view. First of all again ;-), UCEPROTECT adds IP's to their blacklists for as much as one (I repeat - one, single) mail sent to, for example, non-existing mailbox. (Mr. I-don't-make-typos-in-addresses anyone?). Been there, done that, got blacklisted for one mail. That's just plain wrong. I can understand low listing thresholds in case of deliberately set up spamtraps for which you feed address to harvesters by putting it on web pages or sending to usenet. But single mail to non-existent mailbox? Ridiculuous. Secondly - they claim they don't manualy interfere with the listing and thus the auto-expire. But if you ever express your disgust about how you've been treated (like I did on NANAE), you're immediately getting the express-delist option manually revoked. So much for no manual tampering with the lists. Thirdly - Claus von Wolfhausen - the person who claims to be a Technical Director of UCEPROTECT-network. You just can't argue with him. He just knows better and you're a freaking spammer. Burn in hell, die die die!!! Sorry, but you'd expect something more from a "Technical Director". Something a bit more grown-up. Fourthly - as Mr. Wolfhausen confirmed himself on NANAE - they don't have a normal administrative stuff. Instead they have a bunch of students who race to be the first one to delist if you make a payment because the one that does it gets his share of the money. Very professional organization indeed. Fifthly - They don't give a damn about how the network is really organized. They just blacklist whole wide ranges (/14 in case of my network) regardless of how the range is divided. (in my case there are many different networks in that /14 segment, of which I own a /29 with my own whois entry and all - easy distinguishable from the rest of the net). Sixtly - Sometimes you just don't have a choice, you must use the only ISP in your area. Even if you have your own own range and you're easily distinguishable from the background noise, they don't care. They won't whitelist you just because you're the good guy. No, they can whitelist you if you give them money. Therefore I advocate strongly against any use of UCEPROTECT. It's not reliable, gives many false positives and looks like a scheme deliberately set up to list wide ranges of IP's so that some people pay to get delisted/whitelisted. Just as spammers send huge quantities of spam in hope that some of them are profitable. It's the same mechanism just implemented differently. -- /\-\/\-\/\-\/\-\/\-\/\-\/\ \ k...@epsilon.eu.org / / http://epsilon.eu.org/ \ \/-/\/-/\/-/\/-/\/-/\/-/\/
