There are plenty of blacklists and there is no need to "support" just those two. So i totally agree that the RIPE should expand the list or remove it Am 03.03.21 um 12:31 schrieb Nuno Vieira via anti-abuse-wg:
Hi.
Let me disagree on this misconcept of "endorsement" or "reference" or "reporting".
There are **plenty** blacklists out there.
RIPE reports specifically UCEPROTECT and SPAMHAUS.
This kind of usage and reference by RIPE empirically supports/endorses/make those as a reference. (or a troll feeded)
If ripe community dont feel it that way then, imo they should either:
a) add more blacklists checks and not only those (in order to avoid discrimination to other blacklist operators)
or
b) remove blacklist reports at all, so it keeps a neutral position on this.
btw, how many of you already got fresh allocations from RIPE that were blacklisted from some of those, and had challenges to start using those and/or get them scrubbed raise the hand.
cheers /nuno
On Wed, 2021-03-03 at 12:16 +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 11:57:13AM +0100, Esa Laitinen wrote:
This indeed puts the uceprotect in a different category in my books. Please forget what I wrote earlier in this chain. I do have my own opinion about uceprotect (and it's not favourable), but we do not need to actually discuss "do we as community like their service or not" or "do we endorse it or not".
The RIPE-Stats-Plugin provides *reporting*, and if someone's IP space ends up on a blacklist that is actually used by people, it is useful information to be told about it.
This is why uceprotect is listed there, not because "RIPE endorses it".
Gert Doering -- NetMaster
-- 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