Matthew Elvey wrote:
You say BLs (including RHSBLs, yes?) must not be anonymous, but provide
no counterargument to my and others arguments for anonymity.
We're not arguing against (nor does the BCP) anonymity. Just saying
that there should be a non-public contact mechanism. I'll amplify that
in a reply to the comment about spews tomorrow morning.
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.
This'd probably be a good idea for the introduction.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg