At 18:25 04-04-2008, John Levine wrote:
Personally, I think that collateral damage is a reasonable term, and
all of the dnsbls don't block mail weasel wording is counterproductive,
since we're talking about policy, not code.
I think so too but some people commented that it was inaccurate.
At 19:11 04-04-2008, Seth wrote:
Spot the hidden assumptions.
They aren't true.
See above.
Whose theory is that?
That's what the text in draft-01 says.
So why bring it up in the first place?
I reworded that section. I'm not going to argue for or against it.
How is that not part of the listing criteria in the first place?
"This DNSBL lists all IP addresses if the number of spam-emitting IPs
in their /24 exceeds 10." To anybody who can read, that discloses
whether it may include an IP address that didn't emit spam.
I don't see what the problem is then as the above discloses the scope.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg