<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body>
<div dir="ltr">
<div></div>
<div>
<div>True. If you�re listing only two BLs - one reputable and the other UCEPROTECT.. there are many other public block lists, ok fewer than there were in the 2000s but still ..</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div id="ms-outlook-mobile-signature">
<div style="direction: ltr">--srs</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Nuno Vieira via anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, March 3, 2021 5:01:51 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Gert Doering <gert@space.net>; Esa Laitinen <esa@laitinen.org><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Nuno Vieira <nuno@hashpower.pt>; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [anti-abuse-wg] UCEPROTECT DNSBL possibly abusive practice and RIPEStat Blacklist entries widget</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="BodyFragment"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;">
<div class="PlainText">Hi.<br>
<br>
Let me disagree on this misconcept of "endorsement" or "reference" or<br>
"reporting".<br>
<br>
There are **plenty** blacklists out there.<br>
<br>
RIPE reports specifically UCEPROTECT and SPAMHAUS.<br>
<br>
This kind of usage and reference by RIPE empirically<br>
supports/endorses/make those as a reference. (or a troll feeded)<br>
<br>
If ripe community dont feel it that way then, imo they should either:<br>
<br>
a) add more blacklists checks and not only those (in order to avoid<br>
discrimination to other blacklist operators)<br>
<br>
or<br>
<br>
b) remove blacklist reports at all, so it keeps a neutral position on<br>
this.<br>
<br>
btw, how many of you already got fresh allocations from RIPE that were<br>
blacklisted from some of those, and had challenges to start using those<br>
and/or get them scrubbed raise the hand.<br>
<br>
cheers<br>
/nuno<br>
<br>
<br>
On Wed, 2021-03-03 at 12:16 +0100, Gert Doering wrote:<br>
> Hi,<br>
> <br>
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 11:57:13AM +0100, Esa Laitinen wrote:<br>
> > This indeed puts the uceprotect in a different category in my<br>
> > books.<br>
> > Please forget what I wrote earlier in this chain.<br>
> <br>
> I do have my own opinion about uceprotect (and it's not favourable),<br>
> but<br>
> we do not need to actually discuss "do we as community like their<br>
> service<br>
> or not" or "do we endorse it or not".<br>
> <br>
> The RIPE-Stats-Plugin provides *reporting*, and if someone's IP space<br>
> ends<br>
> up on a blacklist that is actually used by people, it is useful<br>
> information<br>
> to be told about it. <br>
> <br>
> This is why uceprotect is listed there, not because "RIPE endorses<br>
> it".<br>
> <br>
> Gert Doering<br>
> -- NetMaster<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</body>
</html>