I'm personally very interested in getting the format for querying DNS
*white* lists standardized. I want to be able to use DNSWLs as part of
*positive reputation* checking: given an *authenticated* domain name
(say, with DKIM), can we say something positive about them beyond "they
send email"?
The protocol described in this draft covers both cases, both positive
and negative checking.
While the majority of the examples in the document concentrates on
negative examples, the protocol *is* useful for the positive case.
Does anyone have issues with the use of this protocol for WHITE lists?
Tony Hansen
tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com
John C Klensin wrote:
Sadly, I have to agree with Keith. While these lists are a
fact of life today, and I would favor an informational document
or document that simply describes how they work and the issues
they raise, standardizing them and formally recommending their
use is not desirable at least without some major changes in our
email model and standards for what gets addresses onto --and,
more important, off of-- those lists.
john
--On Friday, 07 November, 2008 18:38 -0500 Keith Moore
<moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com> wrote:
DNSBLs work to degrade the interoperability of email, to make
its delivery less reliable and system less accountable for
failures. They do NOT meet the "no known technical omissions"
criterion required of standards-track documents.
The fact that they are widely used is sad, not a justification
for standardization.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf