Matthew Sullivan wrote:
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.
So who are you and what do you have to do with DNSbls?
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.
Speaking as a DNSbl creator/operator/maintainer/owner I would like to
point out that 'BCP' stands for 'Best *Current* Practices'... I see
little point in any BCP document that does not actually relate to the
*CURRENT* practices whether best or not. I would expect as a minimum
that any document you wish to create would have input from the most used
DNSbls in the world (at least the top 3, but I would expect in reality
that it were the top 10 or more) and it would actually reflect their
current practices where there is common ground.
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.
Creating a document that mandates or indicates operation other than how
the *current* DNSbls operate will make the draft pointless as it will be
ignored and the DNSbl operator will say that they are not going to
change their policy for a bunch of people with no clue about real life
operation of DNSBls.
As all that stuff for the AHBL I amplify and agree with all the points
Mat makes herein.
Asrg mailing list