Re: Time to make multi.uribl.org optional rather than default? 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


