On 2/27/2011 11:30 PM, Larry M. Smith wrote:
At this point, with statements like this, I have to wonder what your
purpose is here. Showing two DNSBLs that do something one way, while
ignoring countless others that do it the other way, and using those two
as your proof that things should be done the way that you want them to
be done, doesn't strengthen your argument.
As a FYI: it's one now. Those who were on this list back when this
change went in will remember I spoke with the operator of the other, and
she was okay with making it a MUST NOT. She had been seen in at least
one list to opine that she was never comfortable with it, but at the
time felt she had no option. It doesn't do it anymore.
clearly smells like an attempt to rule independent DNSBL's because the author
of the BCP did not like
Discussion of this BCP goes all the way back to at least 2004 and has
had many, many people put their input into it. My view of the list-serv
traffic only goes back to 2008, so I'll let someone else count how many
people may have helped to shape the current document.
Matt and I got together on the BCP in April of 2003 in the aftermath of
the FTC Spam Panel. Which probably sets a record for the
longest-worked-on draft of all time. It's had commentary from many
small and large DNSBL operators, MAAWG, and a host of other individuals,
organizations and mailing lists. Much of the intervening years were
spent in conversations at MAAWG, where it helped kill a number of
perfectly hideous alternate documents[+].
My personal opinion or not, this is one shared by almost everyone in
every aspect of the industry. Including DNSBL operators.
[+] Many predicated on the notion that it was a good idea to enumerate
exactly what listing criteria should be allowed.
Asrg mailing list