On Thursday, Aug 14, 2003, at 00:59 Europe/London, Yakov Shafranovich
wrote:
=head2 Collateral damage should be a last resort
Extending a blocking to try and achieve action from the owning ISP
should only be performed after contacting the owning ISP about the
current block and requesting action, and waiting a reasonable delay
for the ISP to fix the problem.
Any policy for collateral damage must be clearly documented on the
L<< listing criteria|/There should be a web page that I<only> details
the listing criteria >> page.
............
Some DNSRBLs work on policy level - listing ISPs that support
spammers, listing modem pools, etc. What do we do about them?
I assume you mean SPEWS. It's a tricky question, because technically
SPEWS listing ISPs supporting spammers isn't collateral damage to them
- that's their entire raison d'étre and would be covered by "Truth in
advertising". What the above section really applies to is lists like
the SBL, who have an escalation policy to try and take action against
particular spammers.
But maybe Chris has a different take on it.
Matt.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg