On 12-Feb-07, at 2:11 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
6 months is not a sensible maximum in may cases. If an interval
must be mentioned, why not say a year or less. A year is likely to
be a typical interval for service purchases. Most spam sources are
compromised systems. Increasing the block cycle rate will just
increase the number of times a compromised system can spew spam
before being once again blocked. When the owner of the IP address
actually wants to send valid email, they can make a request to
expedite a removal process in most cases. What makes 6 months
sound reasonable????
6 months is entirely arbitrary. As is your suggestion of "a year or
less". You have to pick what sounds sensible and that sounded
sensible to the authors and those who run public DNSBLs that we
consulted.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg