[Asrg] Final statement

"Claus v. Wolfhausen" <c.v.wolfhausen@spamkiller.uceprotect.net> Tue, 01 March 2011 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <c.v.wolfhausen@spamkiller.uceprotect.net>
X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EA323A6997 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 08:32:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.187
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.187 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.411, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XKbrPGKlnwaZ for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 08:32:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net (ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C71BA3A6992 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 08:32:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net (UCEPROTECT, from userid 32767) id B094412EC69; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 17:34:11 +0100 (CET)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; charset="iso-8859-1"; boundary="------------Boundary-00=_WM0E6ZW5BHK000000000"
From: "Claus v. Wolfhausen" <c.v.wolfhausen@spamkiller.uceprotect.net>
To: asrg@irtf.org
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 17:34:05 +0100
Message-Id: <20110301163411.B094412EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net>
Subject: [Asrg] Final statement
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 16:32:58 -0000

This is my last statement to this group before unsubscribing.

I came here after I have found that BCP 07 to do a serious discussion with
you, and you would have had the chance to convince me of your positions, if
you would have had good arguments. 
Unfortunateley, an objectice discussion did not happen, because you (and
that really means as good as anyone here) has prejudices against me, and so
I had to hear things as:
"Racket-Protection-Company"  even in the first answer I got from this group.

Really nice ... and very professional ....

I have to admitt that my answer to Mr. Lindford of SPAMHAUS was very ironic
instead of being neutral and objective, but that does not change the facts I
have given the audience about the SPAMHAUS-DNSBLs.

Unfortunateley I told in a meeting about that BCP and it seems some very
stupid workers got scared to lose their job.
They tried a very stupid action and they reached the opposite of what they
wanted to achieve:  They got fired by the CEO today in the morning.

Anyway those idiots made me look like an asshole and you were happy to see
me as an asshole instead of turning on the brain and trying to read between
the lines.
Chris and Matt do both know the full story what happend and it doesn't
matter to all others here. It doesn't belong to a public lists.

Since this group is unable to discuss BCP 07 without prejudices against me
and the UCEPROTECT-Network, I would simply waste my time, if I would stay in
this group any longer.

If there is at least *ONE* here that can think objective and logic, then
think about this:

Really technical important things got a "SHOULD" OR "RECOMMENDED" while a
the content of a policy (if there is a payment option or not) got a "MUST
NOT" in BCP 07.

2.1 Transparency - It is a joke that there is a SHOULD instead of MUST.
2.1.1 Listing criterias SHOULD be easy available (instead of MUST)
2.2.1 Listings SHOULD be temporary (instead of MUST)
3.3 DNSBLs SHOULD have operational fals  (Instead of MUST)

That list could be continued. Those examples I have given here are a clear
MUST for every responsible DNSBL-Operator.

According to your BCP 07 an DNSBL-Operator is not required to publish a
policy at all , but BCP 07 believes it can judge if there is a payment
option in that policy. That is ridiculous. 

That means your BCP 07 is at best a joke and nothing that a professional
person will ever take serious.

All people that have voted for it have clearly given proof that they are
really blind or incompetent and their only reasoning to vote for this BCP
was to harass the UCEPROTECT-Network.

That means the UCEPROTECT-Network will gladfully ignore this group and it's
decisions or votings from now.

Claus von Wolfhausen
Technical Director