Al Iverson wrote:
MAPS seems to be the only one pushing for inclusion of this
requirement. Unless there's strong evidence that other BLs find it to
be a best practice, I say we call the discussion closed on this point
and move on.
It's not only too "type of BL" specific, it seems to be specific only
to a single BL.
Regards,
Al Iverson
one last thought, just because this is struck down now does not mean
that MAPS should not consider submitting an optional extension to this
draft in the ongoing process of maintaining the RFC. My statement that
we don't use this means it is by no means a BCP, however any DNSBL
operator should be looking to increase the quality of the data. If you
guys really want this standardized, draft it, and submit it for review
on a stand alone basis. I'll be more than happy to review a formal
draft on this process and render my opinions (which I'm sure will be
many) on this separate draft. I will probably write additional drafts
to expand and augment this once we see how it is received, and where
this process goes next. This document should be, as was mentioned
earlier the lowest current denominator among major DNSBL's.
Andrew
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg