But the receiving MSP can't acknowledge the removal request, in the scenario reported by the author. They are not the ones operating the blocklist. That's UCEPROTECT, not Comcast or whoever.
> USING OUR BLACKLISTS, YOU ARE AT YOUR OWN RISK. WE WILL NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE OR PROFIT OR LOSSES. SHOULD THIS BE UNACCEPTABLE TO YOU, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO USE OUR BLACKLISTS.
I don't know whether that is true; but I do know that it is usually used as a DNSBL - a DNS lookup for an IP address, that answers whether that address is or is not in the list. In general, mail providers do not "ingest" entire blocklists.
> responsible for maintaining their own list in a way that complies with international laws [etc.]
Actually, anyone can publish a list of anything; unless that publication amounts to a contract (statement of purpose, assertion of fitness for purpose), then I'm not aware of any international "law" that says you can't put anything you like in a publicly-acccessible list. And anyway, there's no contract without an exchange of considerations - baiscally, you have to cough-up if you want to assert a contract.
> even offers a very blatant disclaimer on their site
Have you ever read a FOSS licence? UCEPROTECT are simply stating that as a free user, you can't hold them responsible for the accuracy of their lists; in the same way that FOSS authors disclaim responsibility for fitness-for-purpose.
Completely false. They ingest lists[1] into their own local daemon. There is not a major mail provider on the planet who is querying a third party DNSBL every time an email comes in. It's also more than a little ridiculous that you admitted to not knowing if something were true, but then decided to confidently (and incorrectly) explain it anyway, rather than taking ten seconds to look it up.
> Actually, anyone can publish a list of anything; unless that publication amounts to a contract (statement of purpose, assertion of fitness for purpose), then I'm not aware of any international "law" that says you can't put anything you like in a publicly-acccessible list.
Both wrong and irrelevant. I explained how Comcast is responsible for maintaining their own blacklist, which is NOT public, and as an ISP they are absolutely under all sorts of legal regulations, in addition to having service agreements with end users and other network providers. Yet, you responded with a "point" about how UCEPROTECT (a completely different company) is allowed to post whatever they want in a text file. Do you seriously not see the disconnect between what people are actually saying and how you interpret them? Because it's beyond frustrating.
> Have you ever read a FOSS licence? UCEPROTECT are simply stating that as a free user, you can't hold them responsible for the accuracy of their lists
Entirely irrelevant. The UCEPROTECT disclaimer is not for the end user -- it's for the ISPs. If someone sues Comcast, they're not trying to hold UCEPROTECT responsible for creating a text file, they're trying to hold Comcast responsible for acting in bad faith by not allowing reasonable recourse for removal from Comcast's copy of the text file. So, the end user in this situation is not a "free user of UCEPROTECT," but instead a paid user of a network provider with a service agreement in place.
And on this I concur with you, because if the sender of the email is actually sending spam and has ended up on some smtp-receiving deny lists for well founded reasons, they are indeed failing their customers. Failing them through their own lack of procedure and policy, such as not having a click to remove link in the mail, and not removing addresses/putting addresses into a scrub-before-sending list.
If that is the case, they have nobody to blame but themselves for that and should not be sending legal demands to other peoples' ISPs such as at&t or Comcast.
> You actually think that the best answer to a network engineering problem is to make legal threats at third party ISPs?
It's not a "network engineering problem" if administrators and managers are the ones making the decisions to provide no reasonable recourse for a ban, on top of actively ignoring or denying legitimate requests for removal. If the third party hasn't broken any rules, then the only resort is getting attorneys involved, because there are literally no other options if the provider refuses to act in good faith.
> Companies with which you don't have a signed service order contract and/or master services agreement?
If you are providing an email service and your customers are not receiving the emails they're expecting, all because you refused to acknowledge a removal request, then it shouldn't matter if you have a relationship with the third party. You've failed your own customers, and for no legitimate, logical or even conceivable reason, other than to assert some personal dominance over another group of engineers that you see as "lesser."
None of this is an engineering problem. It's an asshole problem.