On 14/02/07, Douglas Otis <dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org> wrote:
On Feb 14, 2007, at 11:27 AM, Bill Cole wrote:
> As Matt and I have already pointed out, you are ignoring what the
> draft actually says in favor of believing that it says something
> you feel like arguing with. Feel free to do so wherever you like. I
> won't bother you with responses you refuse to even read.
No where within this entire draft is the role of the network provider
mentioned or properly considered. This represents a _major_
shortcoming in a draft purporting to provide advice to DNSBL
That's presumably because the draft addresses the operational
processes of a DNSBL, not its policies. Your points are advice on
policy - which, however sensible, are not within the scope of the
draft as currently written.
The note Matt referenced pertains to condition continuing
with respect to a _specific_ IP address. This ignores the role of
the network provider. While listings are indeed of individual IP
addresses, policy should not be limited to individual IP addresses.
The entire ASN _must_ be considered.
If that's part of the published policy of the DNSBL, and hence the
users of the DNSBL are expecting it, then certainly. But again, this
is policy, not process.
Do you understand what is meant by ASN?
A little disingenuous, perhaps?
Do you agree network providers plays a significant role in abating spam?
Not relevant within the scope of the draft.
It is completely absurd to recommend spam-friendly ISPs have their IP
addresses delisted promptly.
The recommendation is that DNSBL operators have a refresh cycle, where
they delist IPs that no longer meet their published criteria. If the
operator has a policy of persistent listing as you suggest they
should, then the refresh cycle will not result in de-listing because
the criteria still apply. No problem there?
What incentive is there for spam-
friendly ISPs to change their behavior? Shouldn't this aspect of
policy be considered in any DNSBL best practices?
No, because it's not part of operational best practice, it's part of
the operator's policy-making process - which is subjective,
politically-charged, and doesn't belong in the BCP.
Asrg mailing list