On 9-Feb-07, at 7:46 AM, Daniel Feenberg wrote:
I strongly believe this is covered by the verbiage in this
section. Should a criminal spammer find himself listed in the SBL
(for example), he should be allowed to immediately request
removal, and be granted that. As soon as he spams, he should be
immediately relisted. And the limits on removals be made harder
for him/her - see the second to last sentence in that first
paragraph. The intention is to make innocent listings easy to
remove, and criminal listings harder to remove.
Is this always desirable?
No. That's why it's a SHOULD.
If removal must be automatic, doesn't that unnecesarily give the
spammer twice as long on the IP address?
Technically yes. But the majority of spammers aren't going to go
through the removal process, simply because they don't want to end up
having that discussion.
A good example of a DNSBL that honours immediate removal requests is
the CBL. One of the very first DNSBLs (the one that became MAPS RSS)
also did this.
It seems like that would double the amount of uncaught spam. I
would have thought that confirming a delisting with the ASN abuse
contact or providing reverse name look to a non-generic host name
would be reasonable precaustions a DNSBL might wish to impose
before delisting an address, and that in any case it should be up
to list policy.
Absolutely. This BCP is just a list of recommendations for that
policy (especially the SHOULD parts). We think automatic removals are
best practice because they help keep FPs low, but not every DNSBL
will agree.
Matt.
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg