On Feb 27, 2011, at 5:07 PM, Andrew Kirch wrote:
On 2/27/2011 7:57 PM, Kelly Molloy wrote:
Many (volunteer, even!) lists handle delistings free of charge. 24/7
coverage is a lot to ask of any list, and I don't see that anyone is arguing
for that as a standard.
That's fine, but as long as some are, the BCP should not use language like
Just because one blacklist does something doesn't mean that a BCP document is
required to consider that behaviour a "best common practice" and describe it as
"MUST NOT" is absolutely an acceptable term for a BCP document to use to say
that a behaviour is clearly outside "best practice".
 Heck, I respond with public ridicule and spite listings to people who
complain about being wrongly listed on one of my blacklists. Also to users
of the list who contact me when it fails to meet their expectations. I'm
perfectly happy with that behavior to be covered by a "MUST NOT" in a blacklist
 It's the all-of-ipv4-bl, admittedly, but that's still a blacklist, just as
useful and valid as UCEPROTECT when it comes to constraining BCP language.
Asrg mailing list