At 22:29 30-03-2008, Douglas Otis wrote:
This is Dave Rand again, again - I am not part of this mailing list,
and am responding via this forum simply to provide facts, figures and
current status. I continue to be available for questions, comments
and backing data.
I gather that Dave Rand is not following the discussion as he is not
part of the mailing list. It's not conducive to have a discussion
under these circumstances.
If you want to put in the draft that "fully or semi-automated lists
should have a retest interval", that's fine with me. In fact, this
would help blocklist providers defend against "you are cracking our
system!" complaints. Define the retest interval to be something
reasonable, and I'm certain that all reputation providers doing
automated listing will help.
This draft is not a license for DNSBL operators to scan hosts or do any tests.
Automatic expiration for automated lists? Well, we know that 8 years
isn't long enough. I don't know what it should be. 20 years?
The DNSL operator is free to have an expiration of 20 years. This
draft is a BCP. It's up the operator to determine whether they wish
to follow it or not.
Perhaps I am mis-reading this, or perhaps I'm just confused about the
intent of the draft to insulate service providers from any requirement
of action. If I am, I apologize to the group. Again, I am *all for*
If there's any requirement for service providers to act upon, it
makes adoption of the draft more difficult.
Asrg mailing list