The more I think about it the more I consider any codification of
blacklists into an IETF-blessed document as questionable.
I think of blacklists more like random, desparate acts by desparate
people than a technology.
There's just something so institutionalizing about producing a best
common practices document around blacklists.
Ok let's back up a bit.
If we think of them as reputation systems, like credit agencies, then
there's a lot of liability implied by codifying them. Suddenly there's
a checklist to compare against for acceptable behavior.
If we think of them as a kind of centrally administered boycott then
it's practically a grassroots political kind of activity. Is that kind
of thing often codified in IETF docs? Would the IETF produce, e.g.,
BCPs for running Wikis or Blogs?
But more to the first point, is there any opportunity to run something
like this BCP past a knowledgeable lawyer for some reaction in the
context I'm raising?
I dunno, what happens when one of these spambags does sue and then
uses this BCP document to argue that the blacklist operator harmed
him/her/it by their egregiously unprofessional behavior as defined by
the IETF? Is this document really meant to be used like that? Isn't
that a potential use of any BCP?
Does anyone worry about this kind of thing? I do.
In the same vein, I'm having a lot of trouble understanding what good
it does anyone (other than perhaps a plaintiff against a blacklist
operator) since it mostly just codifies "be excellent to each other!"
in a sort of idealistic way.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs(_at_)TheWorld(_dot_)com |
http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo*
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg