At 10:49 AM -0800 2/14/07, Douglas Otis wrote:
On Feb 14, 2007, at 6:02 AM, Bill Cole wrote:
At 9:57 PM -0800 2/12/07, Douglas Otis wrote:
On Feb 12, 2007, at 7:46 PM, Matt Sergeant wrote:
On the contrary. You have not presented cogent arguments as to
why 6 months is a suitable listing duration, especially when a
provider is negligent.
Because the BCP does not say that and you are inventing that
concept by not reading carefully enough.
If the listing criteria remains true, the entire paragraph talking
about 6 months is completely irrelevant.
Listing policies regarding duration must consider behaviors of
specific IP addresses and that of that of the network provider
associated with the ASN.
,---
|For more aggressive spammers (e.g., those operating their
|own ISP) the temporary period MAY be as much as six (6) months.
|However, longer periods SHOULD NOT be used since it is possible
|that an IP address or domain can change hands, possibly being
|allocated to a non-abusive user.
'---
This statement ignores network provider's role, and rewards bad
behavior by ensuring their ability to market IP addresses within
their poorly managed ASN.
As Matt and I have already pointed out, you are ignoring what the
draft actually says in favor of believing that it says something you
feel like arguing with. Feel free to do so wherever you like. I won't
bother you with responses you refuse to even read.
--
Bill Cole
bill(_at_)scconsult(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg