On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, Laird Breyer wrote:
On Apr 04 2006, John L wrote:
We sure have a lot of raw material. Can I have a volunteer editor or two
to moosh the good stuff into one reasonably coherent document explaining
what we think would need to be changed for it to be good?
I've just read through the threads again and done a summary of all the
main relevant points everyone discussed on the list (see attachment).
If someone with the time wants to rearrange the paragraphs and flesh
them out into a final document, please pipe up and do so. I tried to
relate every point explicitly to the Church draft. Apologies if I
missed someone's contribution.
Should the draft be so compact? There isn't room to include a paragraph or
two from each of the most coherent messages? Some of the posters were
quite eloquent.
The draft seems to accept Church's notion that if a spam message
comes from 123.123.123.123.dial-up.pool.example.com and that is added
to a DNSBL, the DNSBL operator has an obligation to detect the
reassignment of that IP address to another customer next week, and remove
the address. Is that the sense of the group? I would argue that a
perfectly legitimate DNSBL could block dynamic addresses, even when those
addresses were temporarily assigned to legitimate MTAs.
Daniel Feenberg
--
Laird Breyer.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg