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.
Under English law repeating a libel is exactly the same as having
originated it. The National Enquirer is very careful to publish
garbage about well known public figures who don't have any real
protection under US law.
There are a lot of defenses that would be relevant to blacklists though.
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).
But that might open up the complainer to retribution.
I think that two reforms that would greatly improve blacklists would
be to require them to publish the date at which a complaint was
added and the date when the last update was made to the blacklist.
Blacklists that have not been updated for months or years are
often still in use. This has a major negative effect on IP address
allocation when new allocations turn out to be pre-blacklisted
by idiots who never update their lists.
One of the ideas we have been discussing for the revised accreditation
proposal is dividing the A record up to give it some structure:
127.tag.valmsb.vallsb
val = 256*valmsb + vallsb
This allows us 256 tags, each of which can be defined to have 65K
possible values. One of the possible value types is a date type.
If you don't require better resolution than days you can do 176
years in 16 bits - not bad eh? If you allow the base for the
date calculation to be specified independently you can specify any
date.
Knowing the date of original listing and the date of last review of a
listing is pretty useful when deciding whether to act.
Phill
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg