Re: SURBL Usage Policy change
On 12.11.08 21:56, Peter Nitschke wrote: Read the entire sentence. Please note that free public DNS queries for organizations smaller than 1,000 users or processing fewer than 250,000 messages per day is unchanged. If you satisfy either requirement ( 1,000 users OR 250,000 mails) then you still get free access. On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 13:00 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: In another mail to surbl list it was mentioned that any organization who has more than 1000 users or processes 25 messages per day, the feed must be set up and charge paid. That meant you need to have =1000 users AND process =25 messages daily (average) to have free access. On 12.11.08 15:29, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: Hmm, that's not what http://www.surbl.org/usage-policy.html says about the FQS. It states OR there, so Peter's understanding seems to be correct. Yes, however Jeff Chan's message posted to surbl-announce mailing list stated differently. When I asked which logic chould be used, Jeff replied that the one posted in the ML. I haven't looked at the policy before now and I see it states something else. However as Jeff said in the latter mail, number of users is the key... ...although they only can count number of queries from their point :) That's kind of fuzzy and mind boggling. ;) Anyway, I guess all this should be taken with a grain of salt. In particular posts to lists that accidentally might have changed the logic by not applying proper boolean logic when talking about the subject. That's it... -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. Where do you want to go to die? [Microsoft]
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change
Jeff Chan wrote ... (11/11/2008 7:33 PM): Hi Micah, Thanks very much for the feedback. Does anyone know how many non-profits have more than 1,000 users (i.e., users with mailboxes)? The non-profit pricing is below ISPs and half that of regular end users. There are many non-profits out there that will hit your limits... I don't think anyone knows how many there are. 1,000 users is fairly trivial, and most non profits won't even be able to fill in your forms second required field of how many messages on Average they send a day. I can tell you that most all small 'private' not for profit schools and colleges will get hit hard by your new fees. In fact, your new fees are more than we spend on our email server per year, and as a result will never happen. Given this change in SURBL in policy and pricing, I would strongly suggest removing their rules from the SA rule base. Otherwise, you will likely get lots of complaints from users of systems that have embedded SA installs, or others who do not monitor this list. I can see many Barracuda users not having a clue why they are now being blocked and their systems are processing messages slower as a result. Sorry Jeff, but this is much too expensive for us and many others I suspect.
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change
On 12/11/2008 at 1:15 PM Henrik K wrote: On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 04:33:50PM -0800, Jeff Chan wrote: Hi Micah, Thanks very much for the feedback. Does anyone know how many non-profits have more than 1,000 users (i.e., users with mailboxes)? The non-profit pricing is below ISPs and half that of regular end users. Sometimes the requirements make no sense. A server with 1 user can receive more spam than a server with 1000 users. Both may be non-profit and receive no money from users. There is a huge difference also whether you use greylisting and other rules _before_ blacklist checks. So which is it, 25 messages (queries) or 1000 users? 1000 users and 1 messages costs 500 USD. 1000 users and 25 messages costs 500 USD. Which affects DNS servers more? Of course people can pretty easily lie about numbers. Setting up rsync access does require some effort and resources. You could just write that either pay the minimum 500 USD or don't bother us. If a large ISP pays 2000 USD for 1000 messages, I'm not going to pay 500 USD for 5 non-profit messages (I am over the 1000 user limit and use aggressive filtering before rbls). I would be happy to pay a nominal fee for rsync-access though, since it does make things more secure and faster, also allows to use the data for other purposes. Before that's reality, I guess someone needs to come up with a better public distribution method than rsync. P2P? By the way, do DNS mirrors get paid anything? It's my non-educated impression that most big blacklists consist largely of donated DNS servers from big ISPs etc. Respect to those that dare to face DoSes. :) Read the entire sentence. Please note that free public DNS queries for organizations smaller than 1,000 users or processing fewer than 250,000 messages per day is unchanged. So you could have 1,000,000 users but less than 250,000 messages per day, or get 3 gazillion messages per day but for less than 1000 users. The key word is or. If you satisfy either requirement ( 1,000 users OR 250,000 mails) then you still get free access. Or am I the one reading it wrong? Peter
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change
At 16:58 11-11-2008, Dave Koontz wrote: Given this change in SURBL in policy and pricing, I would strongly suggest removing their rules from the SA rule base. Otherwise, you will likely get lots of complaints from users of systems that have embedded SA installs, or others who do not monitor this list. I can see many Barracuda users not having a clue why they are now being blocked and their systems are processing messages slower as a result. Most blacklists have a usage policy where you are charged if your site generates more than X queries. As the SpamAssassin rule base contains several blacklists which are pay-ware, those rules would have to be removed as well. Barracuda users being blocked is not a SpamAssassin issue. Do you want SpamAssassin to include a warning about external charges may apply if the blacklists included in the rule base are used to process more than X messages or if your site has more than Y users? Regards, -sm
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change
On 11/11/2008 at 7:58 PM Dave Koontz wrote: There are many non-profits out there that will hit your limits... I don't think anyone knows how many there are. 1,000 users is fairly trivial, and most non profits won't even be able to fill in your forms second required field of how many messages on Average they send a day. I can tell you that most all small 'private' not for profit schools and colleges will get hit hard by your new fees. In fact, your new fees are more than we spend on our email server per year, and as a result will never happen. Given this change in SURBL in policy and pricing, I would strongly suggest removing their rules from the SA rule base. Otherwise, you will likely get lots of complaints from users of systems that have embedded SA installs, or others who do not monitor this list. I can see many Barracuda users not having a clue why they are now being blocked and their systems are processing messages slower as a result. Sorry Jeff, but this is much too expensive for us and many others I suspect. or processing fewer than 250,000 messages per day Wouldn't that cover most not for profit organisations? Peter
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change
On 12.11.08 21:56, Peter Nitschke wrote: Read the entire sentence. Please note that free public DNS queries for organizations smaller than 1,000 users or processing fewer than 250,000 messages per day is unchanged. So you could have 1,000,000 users but less than 250,000 messages per day, or get 3 gazillion messages per day but for less than 1000 users. The key word is or. If you satisfy either requirement ( 1,000 users OR 250,000 mails) then you still get free access. Or am I the one reading it wrong? In another mail to surbl list it was mentioned that any organization who has more than 1000 users or processes 25 messages per day, the feed must be set up and charge paid. That meant you need to have =1000 users AND process =25 messages daily (average) to have free access. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. 10 GOTO 10 : REM (C) Bill Gates 1998, All Rights Reserved!
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 07:58:01PM -0500, Dave Koontz wrote: Given this change in SURBL in policy and pricing, I would strongly suggest removing their rules from the SA rule base. Otherwise, you will likely get lots of complaints from users of systems that have embedded SA installs, or others who do not monitor this list. I can see many Barracuda users not having a clue why they are now being blocked and their systems are processing messages slower as a result. By your reasoning, spamhaus should also be removed from default rules.
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change
On 12.11.08 13:00, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: In another mail to surbl list it was mentioned that any organization who has more than 1000 users or processes 25 messages per day, the feed must be set up and charge paid. That meant you need to have =1000 users AND process =25 messages daily (average) to have free access. Ops, it's 1000 u AND 25 m/d for free access or =1000u or =25 m/d for non-free access -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. Micro$oft random number generator: 0, 0, 0, 4.33e+67, 0, 0, 0...
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change
On Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 2:33:53 AM, Peter Nitschke wrote: On 11/11/2008 at 7:58 PM Dave Koontz wrote: There are many non-profits out there that will hit your limits... I don't think anyone knows how many there are. 1,000 users is fairly trivial, and most non profits won't even be able to fill in your forms second required field of how many messages on Average they send a day. I can tell you that most all small 'private' not for profit schools and colleges will get hit hard by your new fees. In fact, your new fees are more than we spend on our email server per year, and as a result will never happen. Given this change in SURBL in policy and pricing, I would strongly suggest removing their rules from the SA rule base. Otherwise, you will likely get lots of complaints from users of systems that have embedded SA installs, or others who do not monitor this list. I can see many Barracuda users not having a clue why they are now being blocked and their systems are processing messages slower as a result. Sorry Jeff, but this is much too expensive for us and many others I suspect. or processing fewer than 250,000 messages per day Wouldn't that cover most not for profit organisations? Peter We deliberately chose 1,000 users and 250,000 messages to be high limits. Most small to medium sized organizations would not hit them and could therefore keep using the free DNS queries. Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change
Jeff Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anyone know how many non-profits have more than 1,000 users (i.e., users with mailboxes)? Most universities and colleges have many more than that. An undergrad-only school that admits only about 200 a year would pass that number, counting faculty and staff and the summer overlap of graduated and admitted student accounts. Requiring large organizations to use rsync and charging for it makes a lot of sense. How much, though... and we didn't budget this in when we estimated last spring, for the July-June fiscal year schools use... Joseph Brennan Columbia University Information Technology
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 04:33:50PM -0800, Jeff Chan wrote: Hi Micah, Thanks very much for the feedback. Does anyone know how many non-profits have more than 1,000 users (i.e., users with mailboxes)? The non-profit pricing is below ISPs and half that of regular end users. Sometimes the requirements make no sense. A server with 1 user can receive more spam than a server with 1000 users. Both may be non-profit and receive no money from users. There is a huge difference also whether you use greylisting and other rules _before_ blacklist checks. So which is it, 25 messages (queries) or 1000 users? 1000 users and 1 messages costs 500 USD. 1000 users and 25 messages costs 500 USD. Which affects DNS servers more? Of course people can pretty easily lie about numbers. Setting up rsync access does require some effort and resources. You could just write that either pay the minimum 500 USD or don't bother us. If a large ISP pays 2000 USD for 1000 messages, I'm not going to pay 500 USD for 5 non-profit messages (I am over the 1000 user limit and use aggressive filtering before rbls). I would be happy to pay a nominal fee for rsync-access though, since it does make things more secure and faster, also allows to use the data for other purposes. Before that's reality, I guess someone needs to come up with a better public distribution method than rsync. P2P? By the way, do DNS mirrors get paid anything? It's my non-educated impression that most big blacklists consist largely of donated DNS servers from big ISPs etc. Respect to those that dare to face DoSes. :)
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change
Hi! Given this change in SURBL in policy and pricing, I would strongly suggest removing their rules from the SA rule base. Otherwise, you will likely get lots of complaints from users of systems that have embedded SA installs, or others who do not monitor this list. I can see many Barracuda users not having a clue why they are now being blocked and their systems are processing messages slower as a result. By your reasoning, spamhaus should also be removed from default rules. Many others have a high volume policy also. You end up with a minimal list. This is ok, but surprisingly operating infrastructure does cost time and money ;) Bye, Raymond.
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change
On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 13:00 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 12.11.08 21:56, Peter Nitschke wrote:
Read the entire sentence.
Please note that free public DNS queries for organizations smaller
than 1,000 users or processing fewer than 250,000 messages per
day is unchanged.
If you satisfy either requirement ( 1,000 users OR 250,000 mails) then
you still get free access.
In another mail to surbl list it was mentioned that any organization who has
more than 1000 users or processes 25 messages per day, the feed must
be set up and charge paid.
That meant you need to have =1000 users AND process =25 messages daily
(average) to have free access.
Hmm, that's not what http://www.surbl.org/usage-policy.html says about
the FQS. It states OR there, so Peter's understanding seems to be
correct.
On the other hand though, that same page states 1k users as the sole
limit to require SDS...
That's kind of fuzzy and mind boggling. ;) Anyway, I guess all this
should be taken with a grain of salt. In particular posts to lists
that accidentally might have changed the logic by not applying proper
boolean logic when talking about the subject.
guenther
--
char *t=[EMAIL PROTECTED];
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;il;i++){ i%8? c=1:
(c=*++x); c128 (s+=h); if (!(h=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
RE: SURBL Usage Policy change
Where is the price list? I haven't been able to find it. -Original Message- From: Joseph Brennan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 12:25 PM To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: SURBL Usage Policy change Jeff Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anyone know how many non-profits have more than 1,000 users (i.e., users with mailboxes)? Most universities and colleges have many more than that. An undergrad-only school that admits only about 200 a year would pass that number, counting faculty and staff and the summer overlap of graduated and admitted student accounts. Requiring large organizations to use rsync and charging for it makes a lot of sense. How much, though... and we didn't budget this in when we estimated last spring, for the July-June fiscal year schools use... Joseph Brennan Columbia University Information Technology
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 09:56:46PM +1030, Peter Nitschke wrote: Read the entire sentence. Please note that free public DNS queries for organizations smaller than 1,000 users or processing fewer than 250,000 messages per day is unchanged. So you could have 1,000,000 users but less than 250,000 messages per day, or get 3 gazillion messages per day but for less than 1000 users. The key word is or. If you satisfy either requirement ( 1,000 users OR 250,000 mails) then you still get free access. Or am I the one reading it wrong? I don't understand what users have to do in this context. It's the queries that affect DNS servers. It's hard to judge organizations wealth from user count also. I guess there should be some methods for deciding what to pay, but the current ones don't make sense to me. It should be up to the queries or free donations.
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change
On Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 10:55:52 AM, Larry Rosenbaum wrote: Where is the price list? I haven't been able to find it. Hi Larry, The pricing calculator is the first step of the data feed form: http://www.surbl.org/datafeed/ Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change
On Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 3:15:26 AM, Henrik K wrote: On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 04:33:50PM -0800, Jeff Chan wrote: Hi Micah, Thanks very much for the feedback. Does anyone know how many non-profits have more than 1,000 users (i.e., users with mailboxes)? The non-profit pricing is below ISPs and half that of regular end users. Sometimes the requirements make no sense. A server with 1 user can receive more spam than a server with 1000 users. Both may be non-profit and receive no money from users. There is a huge difference also whether you use greylisting and other rules _before_ blacklist checks. So which is it, 25 messages (queries) or 1000 users? 1000 users and 1 messages costs 500 USD. 1000 users and 25 messages costs 500 USD. Which affects DNS servers more? It's not directly about the DNS service since DNS service is entirely unpaid on both the server and client sides. (Please see below). It's more about trying to find some way to measure for the rsync service. By the way, do DNS mirrors get paid anything? It's my non-educated impression that most big blacklists consist largely of donated DNS servers from big ISPs etc. Respect to those that dare to face DoSes. :) The DNS mirrors are voluntarily provided and the DNS queries are freely used. Therefore there is no money to or from the free DNS service. It's only the rsync access for large organizations that we're asking sponsorship fees for. Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change
On Wednesday, November 12, 2008 1:28 PM +0100 Matthias Leisi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Number of users or number of messages is a good approximation of the number of actual DNS queries, and sufficiently simple to determine. At dnswl.org, we consider any source (being losely defined as a /24 doing more than 100'000 queries / 24 hours as a large user, and ask them to switch to rsync access (however this is not strongly enforced at present, and does not involve money). Does it help to configure one's DNS server to direct queries for this zone to one's ISP's servers, to let the ISP provide some additional caching and consolidation? I don't generally forward/stub to my ISP but I'd be willing to do that for services like this to reduce load on the source.
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change
On Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 4:58:01 PM, Dave Koontz wrote: Jeff Chan wrote ... (11/11/2008 7:33 PM): Hi Micah, Thanks very much for the feedback. Does anyone know how many non-profits have more than 1,000 users (i.e., users with mailboxes)? The non-profit pricing is below ISPs and half that of regular end users. There are many non-profits out there that will hit your limits... I don't think anyone knows how many there are. 1,000 users is fairly trivial, and most non profits won't even be able to fill in your forms second required field of how many messages on Average they send a day. To be clear, the field asks for an average number of inbound not outbound messages. I can tell you that most all small 'private' not for profit schools and colleges will get hit hard by your new fees. In fact, your new fees are more than we spend on our email server per year, and as a result will never happen. That's useful feedback, but perhaps not a useful measurement. Servers and reputation data are different things. One is hardware and the other is data service. Without data, the server probably is not very effective at filtering. (Conversely without the hardware the data can't be used, so one needs both.) So I suppose the question is: how valuable are the data?, as opposed to how valuable is the hardware? Given this change in SURBL in policy and pricing, I would strongly suggest removing their rules from the SA rule base. Otherwise, you will likely get lots of complaints from users of systems that have embedded SA installs, or others who do not monitor this list. By default, network tests are disabled in SA. And any large users should be using rsync. Any small to medium sized users can continue to use the DNS queries for free. I can see many Barracuda users not having a clue why they are now being blocked and their systems are processing messages slower as a result. Barracuda would pay for the data as a mail filter vendor. Their customers would not pay directly. Sorry Jeff, but this is much too expensive for us and many others I suspect. What pricing would you recommend? Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change
Kenneth Porter schrieb: At dnswl.org, we consider any source (being losely defined as a /24 doing more than 100'000 queries / 24 hours as a large user, and ask them to switch to rsync access (however this is not strongly enforced at present, and does not involve money). Does it help to configure one's DNS server to direct queries for this zone to one's ISP's servers, to let the ISP provide some additional caching and consolidation? I don't generally forward/stub to my ISP but I'd be willing to do that for services like this to reduce load on the source. As always: It depends :) If multiple users with roughly equal traffic patterns use the same ISPs nameserver, caching should be efficient enough to noticeably reduce the WAN load. In that case it may even make sense if the ISP would set up a local mirror of our data (even if only for it's own users and not as a public mirror). OpenDNS may have a big enough user base in order to make the caching truly effective (but they started using a local copy of our data some time ago, so I can't even guess the order of magnitude of their cache factor). But, if you are willing to configure your nameserver specifically for such lists, you may even use a local copy of the data yourself - we provide a BIND-formatted file. [I just noticed that we don't have setup hints on http://www.dnswl.org/tech - I just opened an internal ticket to fix that :) ] -- Matthias
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change
I don't understand what users have to do in this context. It's the queries that affect DNS servers. It's obviously true that the number of queries is the cause for introducing any limitation/pricing scheme. But it's pretty hard for a receiving site to actually know how many DNS queries they're doing towards a particular nameserver or a particular zone (it would require extensive logging and log-parsing). Number of users or number of messages is a good approximation of the number of actual DNS queries, and sufficiently simple to determine. At dnswl.org, we consider any source (being losely defined as a /24 doing more than 100'000 queries / 24 hours as a large user, and ask them to switch to rsync access (however this is not strongly enforced at present, and does not involve money). -- Matthias
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change
On 12/11/2008 at 12:45 PM Jeff Chan wrote: On Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 3:15:26 AM, Henrik K wrote: On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 04:33:50PM -0800, Jeff Chan wrote: Hi Micah, Thanks very much for the feedback. Does anyone know how many non-profits have more than 1,000 users (i.e., users with mailboxes)? The non-profit pricing is below ISPs and half that of regular end users. Sometimes the requirements make no sense. A server with 1 user can receive more spam than a server with 1000 users. Both may be non-profit and receive no money from users. There is a huge difference also whether you use greylisting and other rules _before_ blacklist checks. So which is it, 25 messages (queries) or 1000 users? 1000 users and 1 messages costs 500 USD. 1000 users and 25 messages costs 500 USD. Which affects DNS servers more? It's not directly about the DNS service since DNS service is entirely unpaid on both the server and client sides. (Please see below). It's more about trying to find some way to measure for the rsync service. By the way, do DNS mirrors get paid anything? It's my non-educated impression that most big blacklists consist largely of donated DNS servers from big ISPs etc. Respect to those that dare to face DoSes. :) The DNS mirrors are voluntarily provided and the DNS queries are freely used. Therefore there is no money to or from the free DNS service. It's only the rsync access for large organizations that we're asking sponsorship fees for. The web site has conflicting information regarding and/or 1,000 users/250,000 mails. Does the number of users really matter? I would suggest simplify it that you require rsync access for 250,000 mails scanned and leave it at that, then charge whatever you see as appropriate. If this means more people use MTA techniques to reduce the number of messages being scanned, then it's to their own and your advantage. Yesterday, I handled 88,500 messages, but only 3,500 were scanned as the other 85,000 were stopped by the use of RBL's, greylisting etc. Peter
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change
Jeff Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think that SURBL is a valuable service, and I understand how it is difficult to maintain such a service without resources. The funding is, by design, very moderate and will provide much needed support to sustain this initiative. However, I believe that for non-profit organizations the funding model is not moderate at all. Perhaps this is because of the unfortunate decision to put non-profits into the same category as governments, which typically are able to bring in much larger amounts of money. Or perhaps it is a short-sighted view that non-profits all fall into the same category of large, well-funded non-profits. While there are some that do have resources available to them, a large majority of non-profits are deeply struggling with resources and honestly I cannot imagine any being able to afford the subscription rates that are listed for non-profits/governments. I'm on the board of directors and am an executive for three different non-profit organizations, and although they all would be eager to contribute to SURBL, none of them could possibly meet the funding bar that has been set. The SURBL FQS is great, and it is appreciated that you have thought of small charitable/non-profits with low email volume. However, I think you are missing that there are small charitable/non-profits that can do this volume on a extremely tight budget. Micah
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change
On Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 8:49:44 AM, Micah Anderson wrote: Jeff Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think that SURBL is a valuable service, and I understand how it is difficult to maintain such a service without resources. The funding is, by design, very moderate and will provide much needed support to sustain this initiative. However, I believe that for non-profit organizations the funding model is not moderate at all. Perhaps this is because of the unfortunate decision to put non-profits into the same category as governments, which typically are able to bring in much larger amounts of money. Or perhaps it is a short-sighted view that non-profits all fall into the same category of large, well-funded non-profits. While there are some that do have resources available to them, a large majority of non-profits are deeply struggling with resources and honestly I cannot imagine any being able to afford the subscription rates that are listed for non-profits/governments. I'm on the board of directors and am an executive for three different non-profit organizations, and although they all would be eager to contribute to SURBL, none of them could possibly meet the funding bar that has been set. The SURBL FQS is great, and it is appreciated that you have thought of small charitable/non-profits with low email volume. However, I think you are missing that there are small charitable/non-profits that can do this volume on a extremely tight budget. Micah Hi Micah, Thanks very much for the feedback. Does anyone know how many non-profits have more than 1,000 users (i.e., users with mailboxes)? The non-profit pricing is below ISPs and half that of regular end users. Cheers, Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/
SURBL Usage Policy change
Wanted to give a heads up the SURBL is starting to ask the largest rsync users of its data for sponsorship fees to help subsidize the small to medium sized organizations using it, and to help keep SUBRL running, to do more research into improving the data, etc. Please note that free public DNS queries for organizations smaller than 1,000 users or processing fewer than 250,000 messages per day is unchanged. We hope this matches the spirit of the open source community at least somewhat. Cheers, Jeff C. Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 09:17:33 -0800 To: SURBL Announce [EMAIL PROTECTED], From: SURBL Announcement list \[READONLY\] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [SURBL-Announce] SURBL Usage Policy change Dear member of the SURBL community: As a valued member of the SURBL community, we are contacting you to provide an update on changes that SURBL has made to its licensing and usage policies. SURBL is dedicated to helping the community detect unsolicited messages, and trusts the service is working effectively for your organization. The primary objective of the SURBL team is to ensure that SURBL remains effective, of the highest quality, and sustainable over the long term. The goal is to provide a tool that remains available and effective for the Internet community to control the spiraling growth of unsolicited messages, particularly those sent using botnets. As such, SURBL is following a model that has proven successful in gaining the support of subscribers from its user community. The new licensing policy requires that organizations exceeding 1,000 email users or 250,000 messages per day are required to register and sign up for the Sponsored Data Service (SDS). The funding will be used to enable SURBL to continue as a sustainable organization, and to enhance the effectiveness and capabilities of its service. The funding is, by design, very moderate and will provide much needed support to sustain this initiative. We are providing you this notice to ensure you are aware of the policy changes, and can help your organization to make a proactive decision. The needs of the SURBL user community have always been foremost in our planning. Some of the benefits to subscribers include direct access to technical support, the ability to whitelist web sites, and increased rsync updating frequencies. In addition, the whole SURBL community will benefit from expanded research to further improve the speed, completeness and accuracy of the list data. SURBL's vision is to continue to enhance the functionality, quality, and overall effectiveness for the entire user community. As valued members of the SURBL community, we appreciate your support, and ask for your help in this new licensing model. SURBL has partnered with MXTools which will provide dedicated customer service and technical support. MXTools provides a similar role for Spamhaus, providing sales and support of the Spamhaus Datafeed Service. Please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] to provide feedback and to indicate your level of interest in the continued use of SURBL. Pricing information can be found at: http://www.surbl.org/datafeed/ SURBL would also like to take this opportunity to announce that SURBL is now a project of Site Data Corporation, a Seychelles corporation. No listing policies will change as a result of any of these changes, however the additional resources should enable improvements to the completeness and coverage of SURBL data. Sincerely, Jeff Chan William Stearns Joe Wein Raymond Dijkxhoorn Andy Warner SURBL http://www.surbl.org/ Arnie Bjorklund MXTools http://www.mxtools.com/ 1-866-931-9228 Reference Information: SURBL usage policy: http://www.surbl.org/usage-policy.html MXTools - Authorized SURBL Representatives: http://www.surbl.org/datafeed/ SURBL Usage Policy SURBL data are updated more than 240 times daily and are provided to users worldwide via public DNS servers or via a data feed service. The former (DNS query) is completely free and subject to certain usage restrictions, while the latter (Data Feed) is a paid service. The revenue generated by the paid service ensures that SURBL can continue to reliably provide the information that hundreds of millions of users depend upon to keep their mailboxes and computers safe from messages that are unsolicited, phishing, or malware. Free Use: For individual users, small charitable or non-profit organizations, small businesses or any other organizations that have fewer than 1,000 users or that scan fewer than 250,000 messages per day in total, the SURBL Free Query Service (FQS) is completely free and can be accessed via a worldwide network of servers. This network of servers is geographically diverse to ensure a very high level of responsiveness and reliability. Sponsored Use: Any organization, including software developers, ISPs, or large organizations that provide email filtering (either as hardware, software or services, individually or as a combined offering) of 1,000 or more users
