On Wednesday 15 August 2012 17.46, lists@help.org wrote:
We've ended up with IP space that had a "reputation" in the past
Many of the "blacklist" operators are unreliable when correcting errors/outdated info in their system. The reports I get from people are that blacklist operators are often arrogant and accusatory and they often disregard explanations because they think they know better. Often these operators have anointed themselves as some type of authority but they rarely have any legal training and they often disregard other policies (such as privacy policies) because they think their issues trumps everything else. These types often think their technical knowledge gives some some type of elevated status and they accuse everyone else of being spammers, too stupid to be on the Internet, and demand everyone follow their rules, etc.
This sounds that a biased opinion to me ... Blacklists exists for a reason, the reason is that spam has been neglected for so long and so little has benn done by those that _should_ take action. This very group is a good example, once created to fight spam, but when very little got effected the list was renamed to anti-abuse. Today it deals mostly with whois-enhancements. Sorry, but this is my personal experience. When nothing else works, blocking a range is what remains. Yes, blocking could be made better, for example some feedback from registries when a block has been reallocated might be of value. This info could be announced in by RIPE et.al. so blocklist operators may pick up this info.
-- Peter Håkanson There's never money to do it right, but always money to do it again ... and again ... and again ... and again. ( Det är billigare att göra rätt. Det är dyrt att laga fel. )