4 ms·

You have this all backward. > You actually think that the best answer to a network engineering problem is to make legal threats at third party ISPs? It's not

by bryans 5y ago

You have this all backward. > You actually think that the best answer to a network engineering problem is to make legal threats at third party ISPs? It's not a "network engineering problem" if administrators and managers are the ones making the decisions to provide no reasonable recourse for a ban, on top of actively ignoring or denying legitimate requests for removal. If the third party hasn't broken any rules, then the only resort is getting attorneys involved, because there are literally no other options if the provider refuses to act in good faith. > Companies with which you don't have a signed service order contract and/or master services agreement? If you are providing an email service and your customers are not receiving the emails they're expecting, all because you refused to acknowledge a removal request, then it shouldn't matter if you have a relationship with the third party. You've failed your own customers, and for no legitimate, logical or even conceivable reason, other than to assert some personal dominance over another group of engineers that you see as "lesser." None of this is an engineering problem. It's an asshole problem.

walrus01 5y ago
> If you are providing an email service and your customers are not receiving the emails they're expecting, all because you refused to acknowledge a removal request, And on this I concur with you, because if the sender of the email is actually sending spam and has ended up on some smtp-receiving deny lists for well founded reasons, they are indeed failing their customers. Failing them through their own lack of procedure and policy, such as not having a click to remove link in the mail, and not removing addresses/putting addresses into a scrub-before-sending list. If that is the case, they have nobody to blame but themselves for that and should not be sending legal demands to other peoples' ISPs such as at&t or Comcast.
- noduerme 5y ago
  You're assuming facts not in evidence, such as that we don't have policies for unsubscribing, or that we're sending spam in the first place. To be clear, we've never complained to anyone except on behalf of customers who complained to us that they weren't getting our mail.
denton-scratch 5y ago
> all because you refused to acknowledge a removal request But the receiving MSP can't acknowledge the removal request, in the scenario reported by the author. They are not the ones operating the blocklist. That's UCEPROTECT, not Comcast or whoever.
- bryans 5y ago
  You have this backward, as well, because that's not how any of this works. The UCEPROTECT list is a literal text file that gets ingested by the mail provider. The provider is under zero obligation to use the entirety of the list and, in fact, is still 100% responsible for maintaining their own list in a way that complies with international laws, ICANN rules, service agreements, etc. UCEPROTECT even offers a very blatant disclaimer on their site. > USING OUR BLACKLISTS, YOU ARE AT YOUR OWN RISK. WE WILL NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE OR PROFIT OR LOSSES. SHOULD THIS BE UNACCEPTABLE TO YOU, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO USE OUR BLACKLISTS.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    > The UCEPROTECT list is a literal text file that gets ingested by the mail provider. I don't know whether that is true; but I do know that it is usually used as a DNSBL - a DNS lookup for an IP address, that answers whether that address is or is not in the list. In general, mail providers do not "ingest" entire blocklists. > responsible for maintaining their own list in a way that complies with international laws [etc.] Actually, anyone can publish a list of anything; unless that publication amounts to a contract (statement of purpose, assertion of fitness for purpose), then I'm not aware of any international "law" that says you can't put anything you like in a publicly-acccessible list. And anyway, there's no contract without an exchange of considerations - baiscally, you have to cough-up if you want to assert a contract. > even offers a very blatant disclaimer on their site Have you ever read a FOSS licence? UCEPROTECT are simply stating that as a free user, you can't hold them responsible for the accuracy of their lists; in the same way that FOSS authors disclaim responsibility for fitness-for-purpose.
    - bryans 5y ago

by bryans 5y ago

walrus01 5y ago

> If you are providing an email service and your customers are not receiving the emails they're expecting, all because you refused to acknowledge a removal request, And on this I concur with you, because if the sender of the email is actually sending spam and has ended up on some smtp-receiving deny lists for well founded reasons, they are indeed failing their customers. Failing them through their own lack of procedure and policy, such as not having a click to remove link in the mail, and not removing addresses/putting addresses into a scrub-before-sending list. If that is the case, they have nobody to blame but themselves for that and should not be sending legal demands to other peoples' ISPs such as at&t or Comcast.

noduerme 5y ago
You're assuming facts not in evidence, such as that we don't have policies for unsubscribing, or that we're sending spam in the first place. To be clear, we've never complained to anyone except on behalf of customers who complained to us that they weren't getting our mail.

denton-scratch 5y ago

> all because you refused to acknowledge a removal request But the receiving MSP can't acknowledge the removal request, in the scenario reported by the author. They are not the ones operating the blocklist. That's UCEPROTECT, not Comcast or whoever.

bryans 5y ago
You have this backward, as well, because that's not how any of this works. The UCEPROTECT list is a literal text file that gets ingested by the mail provider. The provider is under zero obligation to use the entirety of the list and, in fact, is still 100% responsible for maintaining their own list in a way that complies with international laws, ICANN rules, service agreements, etc. UCEPROTECT even offers a very blatant disclaimer on their site. > USING OUR BLACKLISTS, YOU ARE AT YOUR OWN RISK. WE WILL NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE OR PROFIT OR LOSSES. SHOULD THIS BE UNACCEPTABLE TO YOU, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO USE OUR BLACKLISTS.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  > The UCEPROTECT list is a literal text file that gets ingested by the mail provider. I don't know whether that is true; but I do know that it is usually used as a DNSBL - a DNS lookup for an IP address, that answers whether that address is or is not in the list. In general, mail providers do not "ingest" entire blocklists. > responsible for maintaining their own list in a way that complies with international laws [etc.] Actually, anyone can publish a list of anything; unless that publication amounts to a contract (statement of purpose, assertion of fitness for purpose), then I'm not aware of any international "law" that says you can't put anything you like in a publicly-acccessible list. And anyway, there's no contract without an exchange of considerations - baiscally, you have to cough-up if you want to assert a contract. > even offers a very blatant disclaimer on their site Have you ever read a FOSS licence? UCEPROTECT are simply stating that as a free user, you can't hold them responsible for the accuracy of their lists; in the same way that FOSS authors disclaim responsibility for fitness-for-purpose.
  - bryans 5y ago