"Dr. Jeffrey Race" <jrace(_at_)attglobal(_dot_)net> wrote:
Let us not repeat any idiocies but let us also realize that legal systems,
after extensive levels of review, produce generally reasonable
results. A well-thought-out practice can enhance outcomes for
our industry.
My suggestion for a BCP would be to recommend that blacklists have a
CBL-style page for de-listing addresses. But rather than de-listing
them entirely, the addresses can be moved to an associated "grey
list", which is published as "addresses under dispute". If the
blacklist verification process passes the address, it can be removed
from the greylist. Otherwise, it can be moved back to the blacklist.
We can call this process "provisional de-listing".
The problem this method attacks is the liability of listing an
address in the blacklist while it's under dispute. We also shouldn't
ignore the emotions people feel when their requests to be de-listed
are ignored (so they see), because the blacklist is following a
process they don't understand. Lowering the strength of the emotions
involved in a dispute can have dampening effects on the potential for
litigation in any jurisdiction.
Section 2.7 of the draft addresses this issue, without going into
the reasons why it's useful.
Also, tabloids (National Enquirer, etc) have an interesting model
for dealing with legal issues. They don't claim something, they quote
someone else claiming it. This practice has demonstratably limited
their liability.
For blacklists, the tying of IP address reporting with IP address
publication means that the blacklist maintainers are probably
significantly more liable than if the processes were
separate. (requisite IANAL).
Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg