Claus - this will make you giggle.....

[El Blowfly]

Saw this on the Spamassassin list:

QUOTE:
From: ***@gmail.com
To: ***@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: UCEPROTECT
Date: 22/04/10 13:53:41
Mailer: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186


Hi All,

For reference the SORBS issue is still ongoing, my ISP (BT) is working
hard to resolve it.

I mentioned in one of my posts how UC (UCPROTECT) were also an issue.

They seem to have taken entire netblocks and are demanding 20Euro's
per year to remove individual IP's

Does anyone have any information about this and in particular any law
enforcement involvement since this smacks of extortion to me.

TIA

Nigel
------------------

I'm sure you did not have him listed the other day when I looked :-)

[Claus v. Wolfhausen]

Subject: UCEPROTECT
Date: 22/04/10 13:53:41
Mailer: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186
Hi All,
For reference the SORBS issue is still ongoing, my ISP (BT) is working
hard to resolve it.
I mentioned in one of my posts how UC (UCPROTECT) were also an issue.
They seem to have taken entire netblocks and are demanding 20Euro's
per year to remove individual IP's
Does anyone have any information about this and in particular any law
enforcement involvement since this smacks of extortion to me.
TIA
Nigel
------------------
I'm sure you did not have him listed the other day when I looked :-)

Oh that's just another doofus that did not understand what it means to be
listed at Level 2 or even 3 ...
Instead of blaming their ISP's such people always blame UCEPROTECT, so that
is nothing unusual.
Not necessary to say that they are even pissed about the fact that IP's
registered with ips.whiteliste.org get excluded from Levels 2 and 3.

I don't see how this is extortion. No one is forcing them to register.
Anyway if i would have the losers IP then i would no longer allow him to
register at ips.whitelisted.org

I guess the loser would then be more happy.

[El Blowfly]

Post by Claus v. Wolfhausen

Date: 22/04/10 13:53:41
Mailer: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186
Hi All,
For reference the SORBS issue is still ongoing, my ISP (BT) is working
hard to resolve it.
I mentioned in one of my posts how UC (UCPROTECT) were also an issue.
They seem to have taken entire netblocks and are demanding 20Euro's per
year to remove individual IP's
Does anyone have any information about this and in particular any law
enforcement involvement since this smacks of extortion to me.
TIA
Nigel
------------------
I'm sure you did not have him listed the other day when I looked :-)

Oh that's just another doofus that did not understand what it means to
be listed at Level 2 or even 3 ...
Instead of blaming their ISP's such people always blame UCEPROTECT, so
that is nothing unusual.
Not necessary to say that they are even pissed about the fact that IP's
registered with ips.whiteliste.org get excluded from Levels 2 and 3.
I don't see how this is extortion. No one is forcing them to register.
Anyway if i would have the losers IP then i would no longer allow him to
register at ips.whitelisted.org
I guess the loser would then be more happy.

Did you see the excellent response from Jared Hall? It's one of the best
and most concise replies I've ever seen on the subject:

<QUOTE>
It takes two to tango.

1) If your recipient's Email server didn't use UCEPROTECT, you would not
be having this issue.
2) If your recipient's ISP ran their own local cached copy of the
UCEPROTECT
zone file(s), they could simply remove your IP address.
3) If your recipient's ISP ran a local DNS Whitelist, they could simply
add
your IP address and you would be fine.
4) If you run your mail operations off a dynamic IP address, that is just
poor system administration.
5) If the recipient's ISP doesn't have any control over blocking
capability, they shouldn't be in the mail server business. Anybody using
some externally controlled service, without local override capabilities,
can expect Email delivery problems forever.
6) If YOU used a decent ISP that gave a crap about you, you would not be
having this problem.


In terms of extortion, I don't see any liability whatever.
Level 1 addresses auto-expire. If you want that expedited, you pay.
Sounds fair to me.

Level 2 and Level 3 addresses require intervention by the sender's ISP.
A fee is charged, presumably to cover the cost of scanning netblocks to
verify the problem has been resolved. Not altogether an easy thing to do,
and a MAJOR cost factor, as also indicated at SORBS. Problems exists
elsewhere, as well. RFC-Ignorant listings come to mind.

Nobody is forced to use UCEPROTECT. For those that do, see 2,3, and 5
above. Solutions abound. In your case, item 6 seems most appropriate.


Jared Hall
</QUOTE>

[Claus v. Wolfhausen]

Post by El Blowfly

Post by Claus v. Wolfhausen

Date: 22/04/10 13:53:41
Mailer: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186
Hi All,
For reference the SORBS issue is still ongoing, my ISP (BT) is working
hard to resolve it.
I mentioned in one of my posts how UC (UCPROTECT) were also an issue.
They seem to have taken entire netblocks and are demanding 20Euro's per
year to remove individual IP's
Does anyone have any information about this and in particular any law
enforcement involvement since this smacks of extortion to me.
TIA
Nigel
------------------
I'm sure you did not have him listed the other day when I looked :-)

Oh that's just another doofus that did not understand what it means to
be listed at Level 2 or even 3 ...
Instead of blaming their ISP's such people always blame UCEPROTECT, so
that is nothing unusual.
Not necessary to say that they are even pissed about the fact that IP's
registered with ips.whiteliste.org get excluded from Levels 2 and 3.
I don't see how this is extortion. No one is forcing them to register.
Anyway if i would have the losers IP then i would no longer allow him to
register at ips.whitelisted.org
I guess the loser would then be more happy.

Did you see the excellent response from Jared Hall? It's one of the best
<QUOTE>
It takes two to tango.
1) If your recipient's Email server didn't use UCEPROTECT, you would not
be having this issue.
2) If your recipient's ISP ran their own local cached copy of the
UCEPROTECT
zone file(s), they could simply remove your IP address.
3) If your recipient's ISP ran a local DNS Whitelist, they could simply
add
your IP address and you would be fine.
4) If you run your mail operations off a dynamic IP address, that is just
poor system administration.
5) If the recipient's ISP doesn't have any control over blocking
capability, they shouldn't be in the mail server business. Anybody using
some externally controlled service, without local override capabilities,
can expect Email delivery problems forever.
6) If YOU used a decent ISP that gave a crap about you, you would not be
having this problem.
In terms of extortion, I don't see any liability whatever.
Level 1 addresses auto-expire. If you want that expedited, you pay.
Sounds fair to me.
Level 2 and Level 3 addresses require intervention by the sender's ISP.
A fee is charged, presumably to cover the cost of scanning netblocks to
verify the problem has been resolved. Not altogether an easy thing to do,
and a MAJOR cost factor, as also indicated at SORBS. Problems exists
elsewhere, as well. RFC-Ignorant listings come to mind.
Nobody is forced to use UCEPROTECT. For those that do, see 2,3, and 5
above. Solutions abound. In your case, item 6 seems most appropriate.
Jared Hall
</QUOTE>

Yes that was an excellent answer...

[Angel]

Post by El Blowfly
Subject: UCEPROTECT
Date: 22/04/10 13:53:41
Mailer: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186
Hi All,
For reference the SORBS issue is still ongoing, my ISP (BT) is working
hard to resolve it.
I mentioned in one of my posts how UC (UCPROTECT) were also an issue.
They seem to have taken entire netblocks and are demanding 20Euro's
per year to remove individual IP's
Does anyone have any information about this and in particular any law
enforcement involvement since this smacks of extortion to me.
TIA
Nigel
------------------
I'm sure you did not have him listed the other day when I looked :-)

That name rings a bell. I wonder if this happens to be Nigel "Featherbrain"
Featherstone who was flinging cart00neys around at various blacklists back
in 2003 or so.

[El Blowfly]

Post by Angel

Post by El Blowfly
Date: 22/04/10 13:53:41
Mailer: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186
Hi All,
For reference the SORBS issue is still ongoing, my ISP (BT) is working
hard to resolve it.
I mentioned in one of my posts how UC (UCPROTECT) were also an issue.
They seem to have taken entire netblocks and are demanding 20Euro's per
year to remove individual IP's
Does anyone have any information about this and in particular any law
enforcement involvement since this smacks of extortion to me.
TIA
Nigel
------------------
I'm sure you did not have him listed the other day when I looked :-)

That name rings a bell. I wonder if this happens to be Nigel
"Featherbrain" Featherstone who was flinging cart00neys around at
various blacklists back in 2003 or so.

I can't really say. It may be worth looking on the Spamassassin users
list and seeing if you recognize any of his previous nuances?