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

[Seth <[e-mail]>]

Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Well, there are two possibilities :
>
> * charge users to help them to be protected against spam. IMHO, this is the only purpose of DNSBLs.
>
> * charge "criminal scum, and those who host them".

There are more than those two possibilities.

First, there is no necessity to charge anybody; many lists don't.

Second, there are people who are neither users of the DNSBL nor
criminal scum or those who host them, who might be charged.

> * as long as I know, nobody is accredited to act as some sort of
> "Internet Police". The only possibility to apply fines or
> condamnations are by means of some legal actions imposed by some
> official administration.

That's the only way anybody can be *forced* to pay.  A DNSBL that
charges for (expedited) delisting isn't forcing anybody to do
anything.

> * the other possibility, getting money from spammers to delist them
> and let them continue spamming...

If there were a way to stop them from spamming, we wouldn't be having
this discussion in the first place.

> I'm not a lawyer but I assimilate this as some sort of "money
> laundry".

That has nothing to do with "laundering money".

Any DNSBL that took money not to list spammers would get little usage,
so there would be essentially no benefit to paying it.

A DNSBL that takes money to delist immediately, and is quite willing
to re-list 3 seconds later if the spam continues, isn't particularly
harming its customers for allow spam for 3 seconds.

Seth