Matt Sergeant wrote:
On 30 Apr 2004, at 15:30, Seth Breidbart wrote:
Perhaps 2.2 should say "Failing to meet the criteria for listing MUST be
sufficient grounds for delisting".
Why? I see no problem with a "sticky" list; for instance, to get
listed an IP must send >X amount of spam in Y time, to get unlisted it
must send <.1X in 10Y.
Because this is confusing.
However I don't think it's entirely incompatible with the BCP. The
listing criteria could be as simple as "We have detected spam coming
from this IP address". How you "detected" it (by spam levels exceeding a
threshold) and how you "undetect" it is up to you.
I agree. The intent was to "frown" on delisting requirements orthogonal
to the listing. Like payment of fees, or other things that had nothing
to do with the listing.
An element of hysteresis (ie: timewise or thresholdwise) is okay, IMO.
I think I prefer Tony's wording.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg