Far be it for me to flog a dead horse but aren't you two speaking past
each other? Unreliable isn't the same as insecure.
That said, I don't think one generally needs to repeat something like
that in a context like this; it should be tacit.
On July 29, 2007 at 02:04 asrg(_at_)johnlevine(_dot_)com (John Levine) wrote:
The use of DNSWLs to override any DNSBLs (or other criteria, also in
a scoring mechanism) is only as reliable as the underlying transport
mechanism (ie unreliable for DNS-over-UDP, especially over non-local
links).
It already says that they're subject to the usual DNS attacks. I don't
see the point of adding this disclaimer.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
--
-Barry Shein
The World | bzs(_at_)TheWorld(_dot_)com |
http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Login: Nationwide
Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg