Nigel Frankcom wrote:
> Some stick a donate option on their sites, which I suspect is rarely
> used. Others don't even do that.
I'm betting that URIBL is closing in on enough donations (via the PayPal
button) to buy 128MB of SDRAM soon! I know they were getting close. :)
> I must admit to being
Andy Dills wrote:
given that they openly ask
for paypal donations, have google ads, and sell branded merchandise
Which probably doesn't account for much revenue.. which is why (I think)
they *later* added the paid access.
I guess I have grown too accustomed to the long standing symbiotic
relati
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:59:58 -0500, Chris Santerre
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jeff Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: 2008-02-20 07:59
>> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Time to make multi.
>
> I'll defer to the wisdom of the people who invest their time and effort to
> provide the services and develop the software that the rest of us have
> come to rely on. If you guys don't have a problem with it, then that's
> good enough for me.
> ---
> Andy Dills
Andy
You are a smart person, j
> This was way too long but I'm waiting on a couple buildworlds and the more
> I think about this the more shady it feels to me.
>
> Good luck regardless,
> ---
> Andy Dills
Andy
Think about it like this... in terms of just your immediate family or
businesses
If you are so overloaded helping ot
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Kevin Golding wrote:
> 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 happil
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 2008-02-20 07:59
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Time to make multi.uribl.org optional rather
> than default?
>
>
> If you think blacklists should be free, then you
Jeff Chan wrote:
If you think blacklists should be free, then you should set up your
own, spend thousands of hours per year on it, undergo constant threats
of DDOs or worse, and listen to complaints if you dare to consider
being partially paid for your work.
Yes!
And some need to start asking
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) t
Andy Dills wrote:
I just can't parse the logic; the seperation between those who should pay
and those who shouldn't is based on volume, yet if those who generate too
much volume wish to eliminate the traffic entirely...they must pay for the
traffic of those who do not hit the arbitrary cutoff?
If you think blacklists should be free, then you should set up your
own, spend thousands of hours per year on it, undergo constant threats
of DDOs or worse, and listen to complaints if you dare to consider
being partially paid for your work.
Jeff C.
On 2/20/2008 1:01 PM, Andy Dills wrote:
This was way too long but I'm waiting on a couple buildworlds and the more
I think about this the more shady it feels to me.
wow, for someone who didnt know URIBL existed, and doesnt see any value
in it, you sure have a lot to say.
If you go to ht
(Sorry for the length, if you hate the wall of text, the last three
paragraphs contain the essence of my thoughts and concerns on this)
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Justin Mason wrote:
>
> Matt Kettler writes:
> > In general I'm somewhat averse to systems with undocumented or vague
> > policies in SA
Matt Kettler writes:
> In general I'm somewhat averse to systems with undocumented or vague
> policies in SA. Case in point, razor used to be disabled by default due
> to a rather vague policy about "high volume" use, that didn't really
> define what that volume was.
+1.
We haven't decided *n
Dallas Engelken wrote:
Superb. Thats all you had to do in the first place without raising a
stink.
Aww, but it's so much more fun to post an inflammatory rant at the start
of a message. :-)
baseball team.>
If SA wants to completely remove uribl.com tests because we dont allow
the heavy h
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Jason Haar wrote:
> Andy Dills wrote:
> > For instance, if we ran a cacheing nameserver on each of our mailservers,
> > would you have ever noticed us?
> Err - are you saying you are generating >500K requests/day against that ONE
> RBL domain - and you are *not* running a c
Andy Dills wrote:
For instance, if we ran a cacheing nameserver on each of our mailservers,
would you have ever noticed us?
Err - are you saying you are generating >500K requests/day against that
ONE RBL domain - and you are *not* running a caching server?!?!?
[Hell, I even run a caching s
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:25:41 -0500 (EST)
Andy Dills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It appears (from email recently sent to the admins of a few small
> mailservers I help admin) that the people in charge of uribl.com have
> decided to set a pretty low threshold for blacklisting DNS servers
> fro
At 15:33 19-02-2008, Andy Dills wrote:
load on your servers. All of the other RBLs that I'm aware of (could be
wrong) are happy to provide data feeds free of charge. To be perfectly
Some RBLs do charge if your organization is doing more than X queries daily.
Regards,
-sm
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, Dallas Engelken wrote:
> Filtering the top 0.45% IPs results in 20% fewer queries/second to the
> mirrors. I dont see trying to limit excessive bandwidth usage on donated
> mirrors as an "obnoxious stance".
The "obnoxious stance" comment is in demanding payment for reducing
Andy Dills wrote:
It appears (from email recently sent to the admins of a few small
mailservers I help admin) that the people in charge of uribl.com have
decided to set a pretty low threshold for blacklisting DNS servers from
querying, demanding that people who hit that threshold pay them a rat
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, Rob McEwen wrote:
> Andy Dills wrote:
> > ...the people in charge of uribl.com have decided to set a pretty low
> > threshold for blacklisting DNS servers from querying, demanding that people
> > who hit that threshold pay them a rather exorbitant rate for a data feed.
> >
Andy Dills wrote:
...the people in charge of uribl.com have decided to set a pretty
low threshold for blacklisting DNS servers from querying, demanding
that people who hit that threshold pay them a rather exorbitant rate
for a data feed.
Andy,
Does the fee you describe pay for (a) being a
It appears (from email recently sent to the admins of a few small
mailservers I help admin) that the people in charge of uribl.com have
decided to set a pretty low threshold for blacklisting DNS servers from
querying, demanding that people who hit that threshold pay them a rather
exorbitant ra
24 matches
Mail list logo
