Hi Chris,
At 09:19 21-07-2008, Chris Lewis wrote:
My first reaction was "if I had meant that implication, I would have
stated it explicitly". But that's rather flippant.
I understand that but some people might not read it that way.
There's an important point in that statement (eg: don't blame the
PBL for people doing deep received header tracing), so we can't lose
it. But subsequent wording suggestions didn't seem to quite fix the
perceptual problem.
I've come up with a different approach - rather than trying to do a
SHOULD/MUST etc, I'm just going to provide an existing example, worded thusly:
------------------------------------------------------
For example, one DNSBL requires, if the DNSBL is used contrary
to their usage instructions, that the DNSBL user should not identify
the DNSBL being used, and further that it is the DNSBL user's
responsibility to mitigate the effect of the listing locally.
------------------------------------------------------
Whaddya think?
That sounds better. I'll suggest a rewording:
For example, one of the requirements of some DNSBLs is that if
the DNSBL is used
contrary to the usage instructions, then the DNSBL user should
not identify the
DNSBL being used. Furthermore, it is the DNSBL user's responsibility to
mitigate the effect of the listing locally.
I could put a link into the specific DNSBL's policy that says that
as a informative reference, but I've avoided calling out specific
DNSBLs so far, and I'd like to keep it that way.
I think it's better to avoid such links.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg