Essentially everyting in the BCP is a quality issue addressing concerns of
senders that mail might be blocked. There are few/no issues of
interoperability/protocol addressed which might require a standards
document beyond the description of host name formation, and IP address
flags returned.
It isn't clear to me why sender concerns are the only quality issues
addressed. If the BCP states that listings "MUST" be removed promptly,
shouldn't it also state that spammers "MUST" be added to the list
promptly? That is a similar issue with respect to the quality of a
blacklist, yet it goes unmentioned. Or perhaps quality issues should be
left to users to evaluate with respect to their own needs.
If the document is to be used as evidence of trade practice in court, it
might be nice if it included rationales for common practices such as
failure to consult the sender, or give him time to respond, to blocking
nearby addresses, to skepticism about claims of "opt-in" or "opt-out". If
the document does not mention, explain and endorse those procedures
necessary to run an effective blocklist, it plays into the hands of the
spammer population.
Daniel Feenberg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg