UCEprotect et al - NANA.Blocking moderation
NANA.Blocklisting moderation team
the pros and cons of backscatterer's methodology has been said at least
three times already. These discussions are no longer useful or
productive. Discussion of uceprotect's policies has been covered many
many times and now also falls under our charter as "repetitive
expositions of largely identical arguments" and will be rejected.
Per charter, news.admin.net-abuse.blocking does not allow
"non-informative expressions of opinion on the viability of one or
another list, method, provider, or listed entity." The moderation team
believes that the charter should be followed and that
backscatterer/UCEprotect should take those that want to "discuss
[uceprotect's] policies" or "serious reason[s], why [listed parties]
cannot implement [what uceprotect recommends]" (Source:
http://www.uceprotect.net/en/index.php?m=7&s=0) to email.
Starting now, we're going to reject any posts that should properly be
handled by the UCEprotect list maintainers. We also decline to continue
to interminable backing-and-forthing about backscatterer.org. You can
repeat yourself ad nauseam in other newsgroups if you like, but we're
done here.
NANA.Blocklisting moderation team
--
Comments posted to news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting
are solely the responsibility of their author. Please
read the news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting FAQ at
http://www.blocklisting.com/faq.html before posting.