On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 10:31 +0100, Per Jessen 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.
First of all, you have (for example on spamcop): "The SCBL is an aggressive spam-fighting tool. By using this list, you can block a lot of spam, but you also may block or filter wanted email. Because of this limitation, one should strongly consider using the SCBL as part of a scoring system and explicitly whitelist wanted email senders (e.g., mailing lists and other IPs from which you want to receive email)." and "New users of the SCBL should read the description below and all other documentation carefully before deciding to use the SCBL" But yes, some other RBL's have also unclear rules - I admit. Yet, the delisting is kinda different isn't it? Not to mention listing only single IP's, not whole ASN's! Yes, I use RBL's that list whole networks but only those being DUL's. And I know what I'm doing and why I'm doing this. > > 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. Come on. Read the main page on their website. "We are the good knights in shining armors and they all are a bunch of liers". Or. "For best results against spammers you will need to use all our Levels together" Yes, I know that braindead admins who don't know what they're doing should get half the credit but that's how life is. And UCEPROTECT just abuses it. IMHO > > 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. 'well-known people' and 'people well-known by me' are two different statements. > > 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. Yep, me neither, but I had some cases of dimwitted admins setting up UCEPROTECT RBL so I couldn't even contact the postmaster! (the whole /14 range my server is in is listed in level-2 - that's ridiculous). So I advice whenever I can that people _don't_ use UCEPROTECT. -- \------------------------/ | k...@epsilon.eu.org | | http://epsilon.eu.org/ | /------------------------\
