Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 [re-send]

Andrew Kirch <trelane@trelane.net> Tue, 01 March 2011 19:53 UTC

Return-Path: <trelane@trelane.net>
X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50AFE3A6A4A for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 11:53:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.299, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xda7h2lZ9BnZ for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 11:53:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.trelane.net (mail.trelane.net [66.93.203.104]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FC543A6A16 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 11:53:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.trelane.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1318A1864B4 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 14:54:34 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at trelane.net
Received: from mail.trelane.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (master.trelane.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HRbEp0+so4lZ for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 14:54:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.trelane.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B49391864B8 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 14:54:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [172.16.1.106] (unknown [66.93.203.199]) by mail.trelane.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 37B611864B4 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 14:54:31 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <4D6D4EF6.8030601@trelane.net>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 14:54:30 -0500
From: Andrew Kirch <trelane@trelane.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: asrg@irtf.org
References: <4D6C265E.1060101@averillpark.net> <EE315DEA-7486-4673-9875-DEC91352BC55@cauce.org> <4D6D4284.50102@thoroquel.org> <AANLkTinxGLpeWmxGWR7hiLoZabYhhmfQdAh=JagCg2yk@mail.gmail.com> <4D6D4B64.5070304@mines-paristech.fr>
In-Reply-To: <4D6D4B64.5070304@mines-paristech.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 [re-send]
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 19:53:31 -0000

On 3/1/2011 2:39 PM, Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote:
>
>
> Normal customers will subscribe (let me use the word subscribe instead
> of pay) in order to use the DNSxL to help him fight spam. Spammers
> will subscribe, probably, to check if him is blacklisted.
>
> This means, the DNSxL list provider shall tell what's the intended
> good usage of the list. 

I think that it is clear given the length of this discussion that there
is not a clear consensus among DNSBL operators, and that the text should
be removed from the draft.  Furthermore, I quite honestly don't care if
DNSBL operators extort spammers.  (I am not currently operating a DNSBL,
and am now considering the extort spammers and those who host them
business model).  As long as this is clearly disclosed in the listing
policies, there is no ethical problem.  Spam is theft, and we must
remember that this is the problem.  ISP's typically now have a clean up
charge in their TOS/AUP (the viability of collecting this I will leave
to discuss another day), there is no ethical reason why a DNSBL should
not have the same policy.  Charging end users to avoid spam is
profiteering off of crime.  Better to charge the criminal scum, and
those who host them.

Andrew