ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00

2004-05-05 12:59:02
Yakov writes:
There is another BCP that has a similar problem - RFC 2148/BCP 15 -
"Deployment of the Internet White Pages Service". In particular is
starts off with the following:

Deployment of what?

Given that Internet White Pages Service does not exist the publication
of a BCP on running it would appear spurious. At the very least the 
contents of the BCP would appear to be as likely to be an example
of what to avoid rather than copy.

"1. An organization SHOULD publish public E-mail addresses and
  other public address information about Internet users 
within their site."

"2. Most countries have laws concerning publication of 
information about
persons. Above and beyond these, the organization SHOULD follow the
recommendations of [1]."

Given that this is an anti-spam group I suspect that very few people
here are going to argue that (1) constitutes a desirable, let alone
a 'best' practice.

This is another BCP that really should never have seen the light of 
day. Given that the project proposed is a global X.500 directory
it will clearly never see the light in the future either. 


Section 6 expands on this in detail, with snippets like:

"Every maintainer of IWPS information should publish data according to
the national law of the country in which the local database 
which holds the information resides."

OK are we going to see a statement in the blacklist BCP stating that
blacklists should observe all relevant national laws?

Are we as a minimum going to see a comment to the effect that
'collateral damage' against any third party may constitute tortious
interference with contract?

 
THEREFORE, to resolve this issue in regards to this 
particular document,
it might be sufficient to include a similar section 
discussing the legal
issues and make it clear that the local laws of whatever country the
blacklist list operator is in, override the recommendations 
and that the BCP is not meant to go against any existing law.

Well it would be a start, but in that case what will the BCP achieve?
It won't change the behavior of the blacklists, it certainly will not 
affect the behavior of the spammers, it certainly will not provide any
safe harbor in a legal dispute. So as Barry keeps saying, what is the
point of the draft? What good is it attempting to achieve?

The only point I can see in a BCP for blacklists is if it is going
to reduce the problems being caused by blacklists. The consensus here
seems to be that blacklists never create any problems. If so there
seems to be no need for a BCP.



 

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg