3 ms·

> I can complain to my hosting company and hope they evict the bad user from the network. But then why should my hosting company do so? The answer to this is t

> I can complain to my hosting company and hope they evict the bad user from the network. But then why should my hosting company do so? The answer to this is the other option, leaving the hosting company. In this manner, every hosting company gets a choice - either they will kick out legal-but-immoral things like spammers, or they will not and rightly lose their above-board customers. This is essentially how the global e-mail community self-polices by establishing a norm that a host either has to work to exclude bad actors or will get boycotted/excluded for allowing them.

cgriswald 5y ago
His whole defense of the hosting company's hypothetical failure to help is bizarre. He considers a lot of things that aren't his concern or even really his business. A real analysis of whether to complain would only consider whether the hosting company will be responsive and whether they are competent to fix the problem. Why is he considering—with incomplete information—the hosting company's legal options and the severity of the spamming? Edited to add: He could also consider whether it is his hosting company with the problem or the orgs using UCEPROTECT; although as someone who needs their emails to go through "no matter what" that can be more difficult.
indymike 5y ago
> The answer to this is the other option, leaving the hosting company. In this manner, every hosting company gets a choice - either they will kick out legal-but-immoral things like spammers, or they will not and rightly lose their above-board customers. This assumes that the RBL in question is a good actor. It is as bad as the spammers. > This is essentially how the global e-mail community self-polices by establishing a norm that a host either has to work to exclude bad actors or will get boycotted/excluded for allowing them. Most of us have ignored UCEPROTECTCTL lists for a long long time as it appears to be a money grab.

cgriswald 5y ago

His whole defense of the hosting company's hypothetical failure to help is bizarre. He considers a lot of things that aren't his concern or even really his business. A real analysis of whether to complain would only consider whether the hosting company will be responsive and whether they are competent to fix the problem. Why is he considering—with incomplete information—the hosting company's legal options and the severity of the spamming? Edited to add: He could also consider whether it is his hosting company with the problem or the orgs using UCEPROTECT; although as someone who needs their emails to go through "no matter what" that can be more difficult.

indymike 5y ago

> The answer to this is the other option, leaving the hosting company. In this manner, every hosting company gets a choice - either they will kick out legal-but-immoral things like spammers, or they will not and rightly lose their above-board customers. This assumes that the RBL in question is a good actor. It is as bad as the spammers. > This is essentially how the global e-mail community self-polices by establishing a norm that a host either has to work to exclude bad actors or will get boycotted/excluded for allowing them. Most of us have ignored UCEPROTECTCTL lists for a long long time as it appears to be a money grab.