At 07:18 04-04-2008, Chris Lewis wrote:
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.
I'll skip the discussion of whether the collateral damage is accurate
or not by not using those words. Suggested text is:
3.6 The scope of the listing MUST be disclosed
Some DNSBLs have adopted a policy of listing a range of IP addresses under
the control of a provider even though some of those IP addresses are not the
source of abusive email. The theory is that customers impacted by such a
listing will apply pressure on the provider to take action against
the customer
which is the source of the abusive email. Such a DNSBL policy is highly
controversial, and discussion of its appropriateness is beyond the scope of
this document.
A DNSBL MUST specify the scope of the listing and disclose whether
it may include
an IP address which has not been identified as the source of abusive email.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg