At 10:07 05-06-2008, John Levine wrote:
I'm not sure about this: "DNSBL providers SHOULD NOT be held
accountable in any way for the consequences of use of a DNSBL
applied in an un-intended way."
I believe that the example the authors had in mind is the Spamhaus
PBL, which lists IPs that shouldn't be emitting mail directly to the
net, but which can legitmately send mail by logging into a SUBMIT
server and relaying through there. A common config error on MTAs that
are both MX and SUBMIT is to check the PBL before senders have a
chance to log in, with the effect that roaming users can't send mail.
Does that mean that DNSBL providers are held accountable for the
consequences of use of a DNSBL in an intended way?
"It is the responsibility of the system administrators who adopt one
or more DNSBLs to evaluate, understand, and make a determination of
which DNSBLs are appropriate for the sites they administer."
The above sentence from Section 1.2 conveys the idea clearly. The
Section discusses about guidance for DNSBL Users. It would be better
to drop the "accountable" sentence.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg