On Apr 3, 2008, at 6:47 PM, Al Iverson wrote:
Wrong -- MAPS did not notify the network provider in many cases.
This was never RSS policy back then, for example. Nor did MAPS go to
great lengths to identify network providers for many RBL listings.
Sorry, Doug, I was there before you and I personally observed it.
With respect to DUL, RSS, and OPS, you would be right. RSS and OPS
represent the difference between automated and manually generated
lists. This was the reason to differentiate between automatic and
manually generated lists. Of course, this draft might suggest re-
scanning these types of list at some interval. Automatic expiration
would be hard to justify, especially due to their small size, and the
extremely low number of complaints they generate. Tony, not knowing
about the automatic retest request, suggests this should function
should have been more prominent.
Statements on network provider reputation was in response to a comment
made by Chris Lewis that _no_ list currently is based upon network
provider reputation. While AS reports may have been in the hands of
only a few, this does not mean they were not applied. Be assured,
this currently is the case.
Of course, even if correct, this is still out of scope, as BLs are
not limited to IPs.
Please review the recommended changes. None of the changes assume a
listing is based upon the IP address. These changes actually mitigate
this assumption regarding the use of IP addresses such as "collateral
damage" or automatic removal being a simple matter of adding back a
few more IP addresses. The error in this regard is found in the
current draft. The changes being recommended move in the direction
you suggest.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg