At 11:03 PM -0400 5/1/04, Chris Lewis wrote:
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.
I agree but it remains imperfect.
It is a matter of phrasing of criteria to some extent. e.g. for the
CBL, if you describe the condition for listing as "having acted like
a compromised machine emitting spam within the timeout period and
without having since requested removal" then failing to meet the
listing criteria does effect a delisting.
However, this sort of framing of criteria makes room for such things
as the SORBS donation requirement.
I'm not sure where a solution is.
--
Bill Cole
bill(_at_)scconsult(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg