IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz <Jose-Marcio.Martins@mines-paristech.fr> Tue, 01 March 2011 20:28 UTC

Return-Path: <Jose-Marcio.Martins@mines-paristech.fr>
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 B796D3A68A4 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 12:28:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.65
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, 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 9TosmZAaI3n7 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 12:28:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-3.ensmp.fr (smtp-3.ensmp.fr [194.214.158.227]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D943B3A6A28 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 12:28:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (joe.j-chkmail.org [88.168.143.55]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-3.ensmp.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/JMMC-11/Mar/2010) with ESMTP id p21KT8dr028773 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 21:29:09 +0100 (MET)
Message-ID: <4D6D5713.3080205@mines-paristech.fr>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 21:29:07 +0100
From: Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz <Jose-Marcio.Martins@mines-paristech.fr>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20110104 Fedora/2.0.11-2.fc14 SeaMonkey/2.0.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <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> <4D6D4EF6.8030601@trelane.net>
In-Reply-To: <4D6D4EF6.8030601@trelane.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Miltered: at cascavel with ID 4D6D5714.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)!
X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 4D6D5714.000 from joe.j-chkmail.org/joe.j-chkmail.org/88.168.143.55/localhost.localdomain/<Jose-Marcio.Martins@mines-paristech.fr>
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: Jose-Marcio.Martins@mines-paristech.fr, 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 20:28:24 -0000

Andrew Kirch wrote:
> On 3/1/2011 2:39 PM, Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote:

>> This means, the DNSxL list provider shall tell what's the intended
>> good usage of the list.

Hmmmm.... don't use my arguments this way... ;-)

>
> 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.

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".

Well, for the second possibility, there are two ways of see this :

* 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.

* the other possibility, getting money from spammers to delist them and let them continue 
spamming... I'm not a lawyer but I assimilate this as some sort of "money laundry".

Two more cents...

I was a little shocked when looking at uceprotect.org site, by the phrases : "we will stop all 
spammers in this planet" and "WARNING: Do not play around here. You have no idea who we really are, 
and what will happen to you!"...

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email