Blacklisting an ISP's ASN or entire network range because the blacklist creator set an arbitrary threshold of acceptable number of spam activity from 1 or more IPs. I'm really not sure about the legal aspects here, but there are so many practices that blatantly approach extortion. And it's skillfully done in the name of "online etiquette" or a "safe internet".
Obviously, legitimate use-cases exist for such services, provided that they are operated faithfully by people/entities with some level of credibility.
Whether or not Spam is legal, many (or most) service providers list it as prohibited in their SLA (Service-Level Agreement). Depending on the type of setup they run--the clientele; company focus/prioritization of ROI--they forward complaints to the account owners, with the understanding that the activity must be stopped. Again, this depends on the service provider, especially as you start thinking on a more granular level. E.g. they can have automated systems handling much of this, or they may have employees handle the communications and provide help to their clients in thwarting such activity. Generally, though, the account owners need to balance the security with compatibility--or the uptime and short-term performance of their services.
Ultimately, however, some of these spam block-lists--UCEPROTECTL3 in particular--are blatantly using a sledge-hammer approach for little benefit to any of their users, in the hopes of spurring controversy; or fear that leads to customers; or outrage from customers toward the service providers. In the end, the intention is purely to get paid, either by clients who sign up for their service or by the internet service providers that can't wait multiple days or weeks until their network gets de-listed. Their accusatory and aggressive language conveys to people that they must be associated with either some amateur company or one that uses, and knowingly profits from, nefarious practices and shady characters if they somehow ended up on their list.
Depending on where you stand, it can be seen as deplorable or underhanded behavior maybe even rising to the level extortion, or it can be considered a shrewd business tactic.
Obviously, legitimate use-cases exist for such services, provided that they are operated faithfully by people/entities with some level of credibility.
Whether or not Spam is legal, many (or most) service providers list it as prohibited in their SLA (Service-Level Agreement). Depending on the type of setup they run--the clientele; company focus/prioritization of ROI--they forward complaints to the account owners, with the understanding that the activity must be stopped. Again, this depends on the service provider, especially as you start thinking on a more granular level. E.g. they can have automated systems handling much of this, or they may have employees handle the communications and provide help to their clients in thwarting such activity. Generally, though, the account owners need to balance the security with compatibility--or the uptime and short-term performance of their services.
Ultimately, however, some of these spam block-lists--UCEPROTECTL3 in particular--are blatantly using a sledge-hammer approach for little benefit to any of their users, in the hopes of spurring controversy; or fear that leads to customers; or outrage from customers toward the service providers. In the end, the intention is purely to get paid, either by clients who sign up for their service or by the internet service providers that can't wait multiple days or weeks until their network gets de-listed. Their accusatory and aggressive language conveys to people that they must be associated with either some amateur company or one that uses, and knowingly profits from, nefarious practices and shady characters if they somehow ended up on their list.
Depending on where you stand, it can be seen as deplorable or underhanded behavior maybe even rising to the level extortion, or it can be considered a shrewd business tactic.