Andy Dills wrote:
given that they openly ask
for paypal donations, have google ads, and sell branded merchandise
Which probably doesn't account for much revenue.. which is why (I think)
they *later* added the paid access.
I guess I have grown too accustomed to the long standing symbiotic
relationship between spam warriors and service providers. We rely on you
to help us filter our incoming mail, you rely on us prevent or at least
diligantly mitigate spam coming from the large number of potential sources
on our networks. We're supposed to be in this together, working from both
sides of the equation.
This relationship seems very one-sided to me. The service providers
charge for their services, and they get more business from paying
customers when their spam filtering is better than their competitor's
spam filtering. However, I see no equivalent benefit for the
time/efforts of the spam warriors if/when the DNSBLs are free. NOT
saying they should all start charging exorbitant fees, but I don't see
this "symbiotic relationship" you refer to when DNSBLs are free. Am I
missing something here?
As soon as the motivation stops being about preventing spam and becomes
about making money, you essentially equate yourselves to the various large
networks providing transit to spammers out of desperation to pay for their
overbuilt networks and meet quarterly revenue goals.
To equate (A) paid access to DNSBLs with (B) DNSBLs giving spammers a
pass in exchange for cash... this is very insulting to DNSBL operators.
Can you (or anyone?) provide examples of currently well-respected and
frequently used DNSBLs which you know for positive are giving spammer's
a pass in exchange for cash and which haven't been severely "taken to
the woodshed" on public forums. If there is such an example, I'd like to
know. (The closest thing I can think of is DNSBL operators giving some
of the larger mainsleasers a pass for fear of being sued out of
business... but that only emphasizes the riskyness of this business and
is NOT profiteering nor "quid pro quo")
the more
I think about this the more shady it feels to me.
DISCLAIMER: I'm an admin for SURBL. I ALSO run a separate for-profit
DNSBL that requires a monthly subscription payment for access. I even
e-mailed Andy off-list to tell him about my subscription based-DNSBL in
case that would help him.
When I think about the countless unbillable hours that I've spend
creating two world-class blacklists over the past years... (a URI list
and an "RBL") as well the time I've spent helping SURBL... I have to
confess, after reading Andy's comments, I was about ready to throw
furniture across the room.
But, at the same time, I can't help but feel like URIBL's prices seem a
bit steep.Then again, maybe I wouldn't think so if my own mail hosting
business really did have enough business to generate enough queries to
raise alarms. IOW, at the (current) size of my business, these prices
seem high... but maybe that is comparing apples to oranges since I don't
have the revenue streams that the typical business from which URIBL
would require a subscription.
In general, it would be nice if more DNSBLs would create revenue models
where smaller organizations would pay just a little per month... and
that is closer to what I've come up with regarding my own
subscription-based DNSBLs. I can understand the sticker shock when
something goes from "free" to being thousands of dollars per year.
But when someone says that all DNSBLs should be "free", and implies that
those operating "for profit" DNSBLs are "shady", I'm left feeling angry
and frustrated. Running a DNSBL is a risky, time-consuming, and costly
business (particularly if the DNSBL is of world-class quality.)
Rob McEwen
