On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:44:53 -0400, Jared Hall <jh...@tbi.net> wrote:
>Nigel, > >It takes two to tango. > >1) If your recipient's Email server didn't use UCEPROTECT, you would not >be having this issue. >2) If your recipient's ISP ran their own local cached copy of the UCEPROTECT >zone file(s), they could simply remove your IP address. >3) If your recipient's ISP ran a local DNS Whitelist, they could simply add >your IP address and you would be fine. >4) If you run your mail operations off a dynamic IP address, that is just >poor system administration. >5) If the recipient's ISP doesn't have any control over blocking >capability, they shouldn't be in the mail server business. Anybody using >some externally controlled service, without local override capabilities, >can expect Email delivery problems forever. >6) If YOU used a decent ISP that gave a crap about you, you would not be >having this problem. > > >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. > > >Jared Hall > > > > > >n.frank...@gmail.com wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> For reference the SORBS issue is still ongoing, my ISP (BT) is working >> hard to resolve it. >> >> I mentioned in one of my posts how UC (UCPROTECT) were also an issue. >> >> They seem to have taken entire netblocks and are demanding 20Euro's >> per year to remove individual IP's >> >> Does anyone have any information about this and in particular any law >> enforcement involvement since this smacks of extortion to me. >> >> TIA >> >> Nigel Your points are taken and I agree ISP's could do more. But in terms of payment for removal I don't see why that should happen. CBL seem to cope well without it. I agree anyone running off a dynamic IP has no business doing so, however, the definition of a dynamic IP is a blurred one, this is an issue I'm having to deal with currently. In BT's defence, they do appear to be doing all they can. Sadly in true large organisation fashion those that used to deal with these issues are no longer there and the replacements don't know what their full remit is. This is an issue I'm working with BT on now so that their customers won't get as badly affected as they are currently. IMO yelling at them solves little, working with them to resolve the problem is a much better option. In the years I've used BT as my ISP I've had issues certainly, but the same can be said for any ISP. To date BT have resolved all of mine. Thanks for your thoughts though. They do make some sense and have given me a better idea of how UC operate. I still don't agree with their operating procedures but I guess that's my issue. Kind regards Nigel
