Matthew Sullivan wrote:
Some mail systems are unable to differentiate between these
various results or flags, however, so a public DNSBL MUST NOT
include opposing or widely different meanings -- such as
127.0.0.23 for "sends good mail" and 127.0.0.99 for "sends bad
mail" -- within the same DNS zone.
Not sure why this is a MUST NOT. If people are dumb enough to use a
mixed list in a broken way they get what they deserve. What's the
justification?
"Suicidal administrator" prevention. JD suggested it. I like it,
but
I'm not committed to it. Thoughts?
I disagree, simply: not in the same zone - but no problem with the
same DNSBl.
It already says "within the same DNS zone" at the end of the paragraph,
but I can see how that might be confusing. Any suggestions for
re-wording?
On the same topic, Peter Holzer wrote:
The A record could be used to encode a range. For example 127.0.1.x
could mean "x % of the observed messages from this source are spam"
(in fact I think I've seen at least one such list). Clearly 127.0.1.0
and 127.0.1.100 have opposing meanings, but I don't see this as bad.
That's not the usual binary result, however, and can't be used in the
same way -- so I'd see it as a reasonable exception to the Best Current
Practice.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg