At 10:14 AM +0100 11/1/05, Frank Ellermann imposed structure on a
stream of electrons, yielding:
John L wrote:
Please take another look.
The example still uses 127.0.0.1. It shouldn't, that IP is
never listed
False to fact.
and never returned as result.
I'm not sure 'never' is really true. It is never returned wisely, certainly.
When SC "listed"
127.0.0.1 for a day this caused some unnecessary confusion
(made it even to /. IIRC)
But SpamCop was by no means the first to do so and probably won't be
the last. It has been done intentionally by list maintainers as a
test record, without adequate appreciation for the depth of
cluelessness among their users.
Simple fix s/1+2=3/2+4=6/ proposed in:
<http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.asrg/11079>
Other points:
For lists of domain names the term RHSBL is popular (about
20,000 Google hits), maybe mention this in chapter 3.
In 2.3 replace "127/8" by "127.0.0.0/8 excl. 127.0.0.0/31".
I still prefer to recommed 2.0.0.127 as test entry everywhere,
also for RHSBLs. SURBL uses this among other test entries,
but there's no example.com.multi.surbl.org
The security considerations are incomplete: Combined lists
should never combine completely unrelated sets, especially
not "black" and "white" sets, the users would get it wrong.
Are you sure that you want to discuss a commercial service
like [3] in an RfC ?
That is a tough one, because not mentioning it leaves a very real gap
in an informational document (like an answer to the question "why
does my mail server documentation call DNSBL's RBL'S?") but on the
other hand, the online references available all lead to the current
owner of the MAPS intellectual property, whose chief effort since
acquiring those remains seems to be to bury the history and the
technical details rather than to document anything.
--
Bill Cole
bill(_at_)scconsult(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg