On 5/4/04 2:42 PM, Chris Lewis sent forth electrons to convey:
Matthew Elvey wrote:
f
3.1. No Automated Probes [Scanning or Probes? - inconsistent].
I think the wording is poor. It should be "No unprovoked scanning or
probing". Where "mere existance" shouldn't be considered sufficient
provocation ;-)
Sounds good.
Mebe we should be much more specific and decide whether we want to say
"email in hand"
That would work too, IMO.
(from this IP).
PHB: SpamSchool 101: BLs don't block (or embargo) anything. The users
of BLs do.
You say BLs (including RHSBLs, yes?) must not be anonymous, but provide
no counterargument to my and others arguments for anonymity.
Best Practices require that any party that seeks to hold
the Internet community accountable should itself accept
accountability.
Says you. Besides, accountability and anonymity are not mutually
exclusive. Part of the goal of the ASRG is to provide both at the same
time.
Perhaps the draft would benefit from a section pointing out that BL
maintainers are merely expressing an opinion, and it is their absolute
right to do so free of legal encumberance, and in violation of the BCP,
but that by heeding the BCP they may gain the trust of their users.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg