I feel the same. You cannot be neutral if you charge for a delisting. Moreover it's obvious that the charging for delisting is there business modell.

89CHF (about 80€) for a single ip in Level-1?! 249CHF Level-2 and 449CHF Level-3. Sorry Esa, that's not a small fee. And even if they would charge a fee, it's not ok. If we all agree with it it would open the door for more and more blacklists to establish such a model. I think everyone can imagine that your ip will be listed rather sooner than later because they make money in such a way. So you cannot be a neutral blacklist and nobody should accept and better, use, such blacklists.

I understand that the widget should give an overview about listings but it doesn't make sense with just two lists and moreover one of them is UCEPROTECT. If you want to be a neutral player you should extend the widget (more sth like MXToolbox). If it's not possible the widget should be set aside because you give UCEPROTECT a false legimacy (even if you don't want that).

I personally feel like it's impossible to have a neutral list if you charge for delisting.

Regardless of what might be the best solution, I feel like there is no way* to do this that isn't subject to abuse.

Like if your business model is getting fees for delist requests, it's going to be close to impossible to keep it neutral.

* Within reason, like you come up with ideas as proof of donation to a charity if you want to have a filter against people spamming. But that will always have some issues too.

-Cynthia

On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 11:59 Esa Laitinen <esa@laitinen.org> wrote:

Hi!

Let me start saying that it seems to me that UCEPROTECT doesn't follow
their own stated policies. If it is so, it is a bad list. But I'd like
to discuss a principle here which I think I'd like to know opinions of.

On 05.03.21 11:38, Cynthia Revström via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
> As others have pointed out, even purely on a technical level, they are
> not any kind of trustworthy source as paying to be delisted creates a
> very bad incentive for them.

We have a situation where your IP address has landed in a DNSBL as
collateral damage. You're hosted in the same subnet with a spammer, for
example, so it is an escalation listing.

Which one is preferable?

1. no chance of whitelisting your IP (as is the case with SORBS, and I
think many other DNSBL operators), so you either need to move out, or
convince the hosting provider to fix the issue

2. you can get a whitelisting done (possibly for a (relatively small) fee).

Personally I'd prefer to have an option of 2. Having a small fee would
motivate me to talk with the hosting provider first, to get their act
together.


Let's forget how UCEPROTECT is messing up, let's discuss this as a
principle.


Yours,


esa


--
Mr Esa Laitinen
IM: https://threema.id/2JP4Y33R or https://signal.org/install
Skype: reunaesa
Mobile: +4178 838 57 77

-- 
Mit freundlichem Gruß

Artfiles New Media GmbH

Andreas Worbs


Artfiles New Media GmbH | Zirkusweg 1 | 20359 Hamburg
Tel: 040 - 32 02 72 90 | Fax: 040 - 32 02 72 95
E-Mail: support@artfiles.de | Web: http://www.artfiles.de
Geschäftsführer: Harald Oltmanns | Tim Evers
Eingetragen im Handelsregister Hamburg - HRB 81478