Brad Knowles wrote:
Indeed, but we need better investigative tools. Tools that can give
us a more authoritative view on whether or not a particular black list
actually adheres to the rules they espouse, or if maybe they are
revenge-based, or whatever. Tools that tell us if certain black lists
import data wholesale from other sources, without checking that first.
Given the variety of ways that DNSBLs are built, there's really no tools
that can do it. Nor is it necessary.
A properly built filtering system will tell you right away if something
is awry. For example, our filtering system rejects (not bounces) back
to the sender. The sender can contact our false positive handling
process, and we can investigate.
We know _exactly_ how each of the DNSBLs we're using work - their
effectiveness ratings, FP ratings, because we see and measure all of it.
I'm not proposing any solutions per se, but it would be nice if we
could have some sort of a rating system that we could apply to various
aspects of all black lists, and on which trusted members of the
community could then vote.
There are a number of "ratings" services already that can be help with
the initial choice. There's no excuse, however, in operating any
meaningful size filtering system without being able to determine the
pros and cons on your own. Caveat emptor.
I should also point out that each site will have its own requirements.
Forcing some sort of "ratings" system on them will disenfranchise
someone. If the site wants to use a blacklist that blocks 200/8, they
should be able to.
[We have a DNSBL BCP which I should publish soon.]
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg