This is a discussion on Re: SURBL Usage Policy change - SpamAssassin ; "Jeff Chan" writes: I think that SURBL is a valuable service, and I understand how it is difficult to maintain such a service without resources. > The funding is, by design, very moderate and will provide much needed > support ...
I think that SURBL is a valuable service, and I understand how it is
difficult to maintain such a service without resources.
> The funding is, by design, very moderate and will provide much needed
> support to sustain this initiative.
However, I believe that for non-profit organizations the funding model
is not moderate at all. Perhaps this is because of the unfortunate
decision to put non-profits into the same category as governments, which
typically are able to bring in much larger amounts of money. Or perhaps
it is a short-sighted view that non-profits all fall into the same
category of large, well-funded non-profits. While there are some that do
have resources available to them, a large majority of non-profits are
deeply struggling with resources and honestly I cannot imagine any being
able to afford the subscription rates that are listed for
non-profits/governments. I'm on the board of directors and am an
executive for three different non-profit organizations, and although
they all would be eager to contribute to SURBL, none of them could
possibly meet the funding bar that has been set.
The SURBL FQS is great, and it is appreciated that you have thought of
small charitable/non-profits with low email volume. However, I think you
are missing that there are small charitable/non-profits that can do this
volume on a extremely tight budget.