On Saturday, December 14, 2002, at 12:47 PM, Smart Business Lists wrote: > This language pretty much illustrates the issue. It is now a > battle of will between rfc-ignorant and UUNET.
Well, I would characterize it more as a stalemate, but I can see how that would be a decent description as well. > UUNET, in the communication I received, never makes any claim for > special treatment because of size. I never claimed that they said that TO YOU. > However, it does seem > reasonable to me at least, that large enterprises with many > transactions have different issues to consider than smaller > organizations with fewer transactions. And this somehow exempts them from the rules the rest of us have to follow? > Furthermore, if the rules, in fact, are going to change An assumption of facts not yet in evidence. There is a proposal to change the rules in such a way as to permit a "hidden" contact entry. No such rules change is approved, nor is there any date for which this is to take place. > Missing from the dialogue is any consideration for the "victims." I don't see how there are "victims", unless you mean "Customers who were given shoddily configured address space by UUNet". > The issue that brought this up in the first place was that my > class C is listed by rfc-ignorant and they admit there is nothing > I can do about it and that they have taken the action to > "pressure UUNET." Every listing, in any dnsbl, is about "pressuring the owner to change". If you believe otherwise you're kidding yourself. :) > Forgive me for my impertinence, but that seems arrogant to > me. I guess it is a matter of perspective. So presumably you don't use any spam blacklists, because that IS how blacklists achieve their goal. > This appears to be specifically directed at my earlier post. I > neither knowingly lie nor do I purposefully mislead. Further, I > claim no moral superiority whatsoever. I never said you lied. What I am saying is that there IS misinformation/spin being spread by UUNet customer service folks, and that there are two sides to the story, and since the only side of the story YOU told was what the UUNet folks told you, that in the interests of fairness both sides should be made available so that people could make informed decisions with everything in front of them. > In light of the issues we face every day with spam this seems to be > a rather impractical rule. I know we recently changed our domain > registration contact and saw an immediate drop in spam. Of course > it is recurring now. It may be impractical. You will not necessarily get disagreement from me on that point. That's why the IETF exists. People are encouraged to CHANGE the rules, not just disregard them. Cheers, D
