-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
John Levine wrote:
Is an appropriate response: "This is such a poorly thought-out,
inaccurate and shoddy piece of work that the ASRG doesn't wish to waste
any further time with it."? Or does the ASRG need to spell out why it's
sooo baaaadd?
The latter. The IETF's understanding of spam issues is not strong and
as I found at last week's meeting, there's a lot of poorly informed
sympathy for the "all DNSBLs are bad" argument.
How detailed does this have to be? Point-by-point refutation, or
something a bit more general?
Timeframe for responses?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows 2000)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBRCjW9p3FmCyJjHfhAQJPjQQA9QKKxrVNg2frzVE0ytWxoWmCFkWLmOeH
CHypHLnWuAdDXw5mUlz7eZ3Bz8I2svm1SawKUnartCO6XXdMLKhX2EzVX3YSeBGj
VGNL9k3g9QSyKzVJcCH2HHVCa0DLQrp9v3CmhAwcMV84yZU/Ne8Jzfz1V14mL+cx
5vBZYBBBmpo=
=3B4X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg