nanog mailing list archives
Re: Spamhaus...
From: Marc Powell <marc () ena com>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:47:43 -0600
On Feb 18, 2010, at 2:25 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 18/02/2010 10:40, Michelle Sullivan wrote:They seem to be doing that a lot of late. They also contacted my employer and demanded $100k/yr(?) for having a "Use Spamhaus RBL" in our software.I sympathise. It's very frustrating when you try to deal with these anti-spam outfits in a reasonable way and you're met with almost completely arbitrary b/s.
What's arbitrary about free for non-commerical use, everyone else pays? When you include it in a commercial product, yes, you should have to pay for it. If you're making money by reselling or providing access to the Spamhaus lists, you should have to pay for it. There's a lot of work that goes into it (I'm sure Michelle would agree) and they have very specific criteria under which they will allow free use and under which they will not. If you don't like it, make your own lists. If you *really* don't like it, make your own lists, and provide a free public infrastructure to support billions of requests a day. -- Marc
Current thread:
- Re: Spamhaus..., (continued)
- Re: Spamhaus... William Herrin (Feb 24)
- RE: Spamhaus... Tomas L. Byrnes (Feb 21)
- RE: Spamhaus... Tomas L. Byrnes (Feb 21)
- Re: Spamhaus... Paul Vixie (Feb 21)
- Re: Spamhaus... Michelle Sullivan (Feb 21)
- Re: Spamhaus... Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 22)
- Re: Spamhaus... Steven Champeon (Feb 19)
- Re: Spamhaus... Nick Hilliard (Feb 18)
- Re: Spamhaus... Christopher Morrow (Feb 18)
- Re: Spamhaus... John Levine (Feb 18)
- Re: Spamhaus... Marc Powell (Feb 19)
- Re: Spamhaus... Michelle Sullivan (Feb 19)
- Re: Spamhaus... Patrick W. Gilmore (Feb 20)
- Re: Spamhaus... James Hess (Feb 20)
- Re: Spamhaus... Jon Lewis (Feb 20)
- Re: Spamhaus... James Hess (Feb 20)
- Re: Spamhaus... John Levine (Feb 20)