On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 18:07, Res<r...@ausics.net> wrote: > On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, mouss wrote: > >> payment were only needed for spam, not for "dul".... > > not really :) despite what their site said/says.. its kind of a detterent i > think sunno we never paid
I think it's fair to hold/criticize/ridicule them to/for their public statement of de-listing policy. Even more so if they don't enforce it uniformly. I know there are sites that haven't pursued it (for incidental events, I'm not talking about spammers), or haven't used/supported them, because of what their public de-listing policy says. So, whether they enforce it reliably or not, the effect can be the same. (don't tell me "they should have just emailed them!" -- bs. It's not the burden of every person on the planet to second guess whether or not their official policy is their _actual_ policy, but it IS SORBS burden to live with the PR type implications of the policy they publish) In general, I'm sad to see anti-spam resources go, sad to see alternative strategies fail, and see the population of people trying to solve the problem diminish. But, I'm not going to be too sad to see this particular one go away.
