This is a discussion on Re: SURBL Usage Policy change - SpamAssassin ; On Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 8:49:44 AM, Micah Anderson wrote: > "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 ...
On Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 8:49:44 AM, Micah Anderson wrote:
> "Jeff Chan"
> 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.
Thanks very much for the feedback. Does anyone know how many
non-profits have more than 1,000 users (i.e., users with
mailboxes)? The non-profit pricing is below ISPs and half that
of regular end users.