SM wrote:
At 16:15 03-04-2008, Douglas Otis wrote:
Conclusions reached in the last three paragraphs of section 2.2.3 are
naive and wrong. Strike these paragraphs:
[snip]
Another important consideration supporting a "no questions asked"
self-removal policy is that it forestalls many conflicts between
DNSBL operators and organizations whose IP addresses have been
listed. Such a policy also can be an effective deterrent to legal
problems.
---
The last sentence in this section could be seen as a threat. "Such a
policy also can be an effective deterrent to legal problems." suggests
list operators become liable when adhering to their policy when it
differs from this poorly considered and naive recommendation. Public
I agree the last sentence should be removed as it's not up to the
document to provide legal advice.
Already changed.
If you don't want it called collateral damage, you can always say:
3.6 The scope of the listing MUST be disclosed
And elaborate on whether the listing identifies individual IP
addresses or a range of IP addresses which includes IP addresses
under the control of a provider even though those IP addresses are
not the source of abusive email.
I like where that's going, I'll run with that for the next iteration. I
also will add (perhaps paraphrased) Seth's "This is often (but
inaccurately) referred to as "collateral damage"". That would neatly
connect that section to the concept "colateral damage", but at the same
time negate much of the (invalid) societal baggage inherent with the term.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg