-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Lewis <clewis(_at_)nortel(_dot_)com>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 10:03 AM
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: Re: [Asrg] New draft draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-01.txt
der Mouse wrote:
"Best current practice" implies that someone is _currently_ running
their foo in the manner bar described by the BCP.
I don't think so. Rather, for each point, there should be someone
doing that. That there is anyone who does them all is not, I think,
necessary (or, for a BCP with more than a few points, very likely).
Note that the draft was explicitly designed to be as inclusive as
possible of existing DNSBLs. Most of the popular DNSBLs are already in
full compliance and/or differing only in a few points. Heck, even SPEWS
would only have been off compliance on one major (and perhaps one or two
minor) points for most of its lifetime.
Please keep that in mind - if it seems otherwise, that means we have a
wording problem. Which is why I'm redrafting 2.2.1 and 2.2.3... ;-)
Why would we implement a BCP that (to some) seems so inclusive/"loose"?
Two reasons:
1) Tell DNSBL _users_ what points they should look for, and at least by
omission, what _not_ to expect.
2) Explicitly recognize that DNSBL operators should be able to implement
whatever listing policies they want.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg