First, yes. They (the small providers) have recourse, it’s just annoying. They voluntarily signed up for that annoyance because of their ideology.
But much more importantly, that question is orthogonal to my argument. Using blocklists is a good way to cut down on spam, the fact that it might block some trivial percentage of people who for ideological reasons might or might not be on those lists isn’t the receivers problem.
You want this to not be the case? Contribute meaningfully to solving the problem in a more effective way. Don’t blame the people who just don’t want the spam.
The small providers typically don't have recourse if they approach a blocklist maintainer and ask to be taken off a list. That "trivial percentage of people" make up a substantial portion of service providers (for every Google there are many <100 user mail servers), which is what this thread was about.
I pointed out that adopting blocklists just makes it harder to operate a mail server as a small provider, and nobody in this thread appears to disagree with that assessment. They instead seem to take issue with the tone of the message.
>The small providers typically don't have recourse if they approach a blocklist maintainer and ask to be taken off a list. [...] I pointed out that adopting blocklists just makes it harder to operate a mail server as a small provider, and nobody in this thread appears to disagree with that assessment. They instead seem to take issue with the tone of the message.
I don't think it's the tone. While the inability for senders to get off blocklists can be true, you're still not addressing why the cost to the sender to not be blocked should have higher priority than the cost to the receiver to avoid blocklists to make email admin more of a burden.
The gp you first replied to (PinguTS) is running a personal mailserver and resorted to using blocklists because reducing spam -- at the cost of some legit people not being able to send email to him -- is a tradeoff he's willing to make. You haven't convinced every user running mailservers that they should increase their spam burden because some small providers can't get off blocklists.
As another example in another communication channel... Here's a similar "blocklist" for cell phones that some users take advantage of: https://about.att.com/pages/cyberaware/ae/cp
Are "legitimate" phone numbers getting caught up in that block filter?!? Of course. But phone owners are trying to stop spam telemarketing calls. Telling them that some phone users are incorrectly on AT&T's list isn't going to convince cell users to quit using the block filter. They're willing to live with a few legit callers getting blocked.
But much more importantly, that question is orthogonal to my argument. Using blocklists is a good way to cut down on spam, the fact that it might block some trivial percentage of people who for ideological reasons might or might not be on those lists isn’t the receivers problem.
You want this to not be the case? Contribute meaningfully to solving the problem in a more effective way. Don’t blame the people who just don’t want the spam.