On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Chris Lewis <clewis(_at_)nortel(_dot_)com>
wrote:
[2.2.5] be changed? It looks okay to me, as long as we are painfully,
explicitly clear that the "users" are sys-admins and not end-users.
I think it is, isn't it?
I don't know if it is nor not in the draft BCP document, but it's
crazy muddled in this discussion.
In the DNSBL world, a popular blacklist listing can cause more than 50% of
their email to get blocked in such a way that most recipients don't know
that it's happening. They've abruptly disappeared email-wise, for a huge
chunk of the Internet. This is far more than midway between an end-user
advisory that an end-user can choose to ignore or accept, and a
health-department mandated door shutting.
And is the system working as designed, "protecting" the recipients
from alleged annoyance. Does the BCP draft have a section advising
the consumers of the lists, as well as the providers of the lists?
Recommending that a list consumer provide per-recipient configuration
WRT protection by the various ones --- some of the people on the
qpsmtpd list discuss their per-recipient configuration database hacks,
I don't know what the general state of the practice is in 2011
Do you know of negative advisories that take money for delistings of
entities that _didn't_ subscribe to the advisory service? I don't, except
for the criminal code ;-)
http://yourbiz.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2008/05/13/4355660-staying-off-the-better-business-bureaus-bad-boy-list
suggests "... take the time to sit down with their local BBB and
discuss ..." which is not free.
Of course if it became known that the BBB accepted bribes for
delisting, that would hurt their reputation. I think attempting to
mandate the mechanics of reputation will be futile, maybe 2.2.5 could
be weakened to be strictly descriptive, yet provide advice for the
reputation-mechanically-impaired?
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg