On Mar 30, 2006, at 3:46 AM, Daniel Feenberg wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2006, John Levine wrote:
How detailed does this have to be? Point-by-point refutation, or
something a bit more general?
Point by point suggestions for improvement, e.g., section 42.1 argues
foo, whereas the author seems unfamiliar with bar which contradicts
his points. Basically enough to hand back to the author to say "fix
all this and we'll look at it again."
Surely that form of response conceeds the correctness of the
sentiment expressed in the draft title. The problem with the draft
is not that it has mistakes, but that it is a mistake.
Not at all.
There's certainly a place for a well-written document with the same
title as this one. The title would likely be the main overlap, though.
(DNSBLs are a bad tool in many ways. They're not really very
expressive as a reputation language. The technology for distributing
and using them is pretty poor, and is based solely on a quirk in
sendmails configuration language - the _original_ implementation
of the RBL was distributed in a much more efficient manner. Usage
of them is not standardised enough to actually be useful. There are
many, many flaws with concept and implementation, and that's
before you get to the details of specific lists.)
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg