At 12:16 AM -0400 5/4/04, Barry Shein wrote:
On May 3, 2004 at 15:21 matthew(_at_)elvey(_dot_)com (Matthew Elvey) wrote:
> In general, it seems like the authors don't have much respect for the
> tireless *volunteer* BL maintainers and need to spend more time thinking
> about things from the POV of the BL maintainers.
I think one of the worst features of BLs are that they're often run by
volunteers who can then feel sorry for themselves when they get in
over their heads.
But so long as that's disclosed I have no problem with volunteer BLs
existing, per se, not my point. I just don't think the fact that
they're (often) volunteer staffed should be grounds to give them a lot
of slack on BCP.
Absolutely correct, indeed the reason there needs to be a BCP is that
there is an established history of some of those amateur volunteers
(including one owner of a small ISP) doing spectacularly bad things
with their DNSBL's.
Draft 00 doesn't cover the most common and easiest to avoid technical
sloppiness of DNSBL's. I hope that is going to be fixed.
--
Bill Cole
bill(_at_)scconsult(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg