<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>
<body>
<div dir="ltr" data-ogsc="" style="">
<div></div>
<div>
<div>Since you brought up m3aawg I will note that it does have a best current practice for block lists which specifically declares that asking for payment for removal is not acceptable </div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">RIPE should consider only listing block lists that are managed according to accepted best practices </div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><a href="https://www.m3aawg.org/sites/default/files/m3aawg-blocklist-help-bp-2018-02.pdf" data-ogsc="" style="">https://www.m3aawg.org/sites/default/files/m3aawg-blocklist-help-bp-2018-02.pdf</a><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">There are also blocklists that expect payment for delisting. M3AAWG strongly discourages the practice of blocklist operators charging delisting fees in any form; we acknowledge that under some exigent situations, listed entities may choose to
pay such fees. For example, paying a delisting fee may be a viable option for senders who are able to quickly identify the underlying problem, solve it, and have no issue paying such fees. However, failure to identify and solve the problem sets the sender
up for future listings and, thus, future delisting fees. Furthermore, a payment does not preclude future listings for repeated problems or different issues.<br>
</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 Randy Bush <randy@psg.com><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, March 5, 2021 1:21:18 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> "�ngel Gonz�lez Berdasco" <angel.gonzalez@incibe.es><br>
<b>Cc:</b> 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">i think two things are being confused here; what the measurement folk<br>
find useful and what the anti-spam folk find useful. the ncc and ripe<br>
stat is not supplying the latter.<br>
<br>
it is the mail operators' choice of which anti-spam techniques to use,<br>
and i do that with one hat. but with a different hat i am interested in<br>
longitudinal measurement of internet infrastructure, anti-spam services<br>
being a small part of it.<br>
<br>
i suspect that what you really want is (for example) maawg to measure<br>
availibility and quality of *all* anti-spam services. while worthwhile,<br>
that is not the ripe stat's measurement mission.<br>
<br>
randy<br>
<br>
---<br>
randy@psg.com<br>
`gpg --locate-external-keys --auto-key-locate wkd randy@psg.com`<br>
signatures are back, thanks to dmarc header mangling<br>
<br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</body>
</html>