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