Seth wrote:
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.
Whose theory is that?
It's implied. If IPv4 aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd is the source of net abuse,
and a DNSBL recording it lists more than only this IPv4, then it
has a theory why listing aaa.bbb.ccc.* is better than say listing
*.bbb.ccc.ddd. And that theory might be wrong if it is based on
obsolete concepts of classes or assumptions about /24 ranges.
Such a DNSBL policy is highly controversial, and discussion of
its appropriateness is beyond the scope of this document.
So why bring it up in the first place?
Maybe an explanation why simply progressing from listing the IPv4,
then the /31, and so on, is an oversimplification and at some
point doomed, is better. With a note that "some point" can be
smaller or bigger than /24 depending on the IPv4.
"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.
That misses the point, when the assumption that all IPs in a /24
are administratively related, is dubious. Readers of a listing
policy could arrive at arbitrary conclusions based on the wrong
assumption.
Frank
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg