Mariusz Kruk wrote: > Every respectable RBL has _clear_ rules of > 1. Listing
Hmm, I'm not so sure - how about spamcop, surbl, uribl, spamhaus? Their rules are exactly as clear or unclear as those of uceprotect. http://www.uceprotect.net/en/index.php?m=3&s=3 I too _would_ like to know how the data is collected, coz' that would enable me to increase the scores (assuming I agree with the policy/method), but the policy as described are sufficient for me to use the data. > The problem is not in the fact of running RBL as such. The problem is > in misleading people to use this service and using it to gain > advantage over people forcing them to pay money. How do you see UCEPROTECT misleading anyone? I think they're actually being more open/explicit about their policies than some providers I can think of. > Oh, and BTW, http://www.uceprotect.net/en/index.php?m=2&s=0 > See the 15th question's response. I don't know about you but for me > 'anonymous circle of well-known people' seems kinda oxymoronic. Not at all. I have a circle of friends that are well-known to me - when I don't tell everyone who they are, they are anonymous. > And another BTW. I found a mailinglist discussion about UCEPROTECT in > which you also took part (no, I wasn't looking for you :->) > http://lists.swinog.ch/public/swinog/2008-January/002432.html > Don't you think that manually adding someone to a blacklist (for free! > *evil grin*) is tampering with it without clear rules? The guy with > the autoresponder was surely causing some inconvenience but the proper > response was to notify the list owner, not to add IP to the blacklist. Like I said in that thread, yes, I think that is a somewhat problematic practice - which is why I don't block with UCEPROTECT. /Per Jessen, Zürich
