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