On Thursday, March 30, 2006 at 9:36 AM Daniel Feenberg wrote:
What sort of data did you want to see? Something about the
average success rates and false positive rates over all
DNSBLs? Or an analysis of one or a couple? When I looked, I
found that most DNSBLs blocked little spam, but that the best
were quite effective. Is it sufficient to show that the best
are well run, or do we have to show that all are?
Neither statistic addresses what the state of the spam
situation would be if DNSBLs did not exist, since they are a
powerfull tool discouraging MTAs from spewing.
It's the latter that I had in mind. What data can be adduced to
demonstrate that we're better off with DNSBLs than without them?
Perhaps something like sharply increased CPU loads would be a useful
data point. Can we point to incidents where server meltdowns occurred
because no DNSBLs were in place?
Exactly what kind of data might work best to address this point is
something I'm still thinking through, and I welcome the thoughts of
other ASRG participants. One of the problems with the two suggestions
in the preceding paragraph is that those data points are essentially
anecdotal, but it may be that's the best we'll be able to come up with.
Still, I think some thought needs to be given to how we can empirically
demonstrate that "DNSBLs are an essential part of a healthy diet". It's
evidence of this nature that's most likely to be persuasive to the IETF.
Regards,
Nick
--
Nick Nicholas
Knowledge Engineer
Habeas Inc.
650-694-3320
nick(_at_)habeas(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg