[kictanet] Dirty IPs

[McTim]

On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 9:05 AM, robert yawe <robertyawe at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi,
> The problem is not the IP at my end but the IP of the providers SMTP server,
> they are the only ones who can request for it to be cleared but they are
> unresponsive,

Then they fail, and the best way to send them a message about that
failure is for them to lose your business.


 I know I have the freedom to move to another provider but does
> that really solve the problem of licensed operators not being monitored.

It's a market solution.  There is no ISP in the world that is
"monitored" by any government entity for running sub-standard
production mail servers.  That's why there are BLs.



> What use is it then to have CCK license providers and then not police them
> or is it that their only objective is revenue collection?  I expect that
> licensing by CCK of a provider is similar to KeBS placing their mark on a
> product, an assurance to the public that the particular organisations
> products and services have been vetted and soon to meet certain set
> performance levels.


yes, number of cllas dropped, and other metrics, but not compliance to RFCs.

> I remember all the Hullabaloo about the DG, aren't some of this issues what
> should determine the KPIs for the organisation, its executive and finally
> the board of directors?


no.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel