John Levine wrote:
The example still uses 127.0.0.1.
Only as a return value, which is indeed what a fair number
of DNSBLs do.
You have it in the bit-mapped example, the only lists I know
where bit 0 is used are OPM and IADB. For OPM it's no issue,
they use 127.1.0.x => 127.0.0.1 impossible. Maybe the "1" in
127.1.0.x is some version number, or it's a kludge to avoid
the "critical" 127.0.0.1 as result.
I've kicked 2.0.0.127.wadb.isipp.com = 127.0.0.1 from rxwhois,
it doesn't pass my minimal sanity check. After Osirusoft I at
least _try_ to detect irregular conditions.
You may not like it, but my goal here is to document what
people do, not to write a BCP which is a separate project.
If there are many lists using 127.0.0.1 for bit-mapped results
you could mention it in the "security considerations". Which
_other_ (excl. IADB) DNSBLs use bit 0 for their first set ?
The most simple approach is "don't talk about it", use bit 1
for set 1 and bit 2 for set 2, with 127.0.0.6 for the union.
Example `rxwhois -a` output (special case OPM eplained above):
127.0.0.2 (------1-): .combined-hib.dnsiplists.completewhois.com
127.0.0.2 (------1-): .ix.dnsbl.manitu.net
127.0.0.2 (------1-): .bl.spamcop.net
127.0.0.2 (------1-): .multi.surbl.org
127.0.0.2 (------1-): .psbl.surriel.com
127.0.0.2 (------1-): .combined.njabl.org
127.0.0.2 (---43210): .opm.blitzed.org
127.0.0.2 (------1-): .list.dsbl.org
127.0.0.2 (------1-): .relays.ordb.org
127.0.0.2 (-----2--): .sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org
127.0.0.2 (------1-): .cbl.abuseat.org
[RBL]
Could you explain what legal headaches you're referring to?
If I could explain it won't be a headache. Is it allowed to
mention "US service marks" in an RfC ? Is that relevant for
anybody outside of the US, if yes, what is a "service mark" ?
IANAL and therefore I'd stay way from it where possible. Bye
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg