Steve wrote:
Just because one blacklist does something doesn't mean that a BCP document
is required to consider that behaviour a "best common practice" and describe
it as such[1].
Really? I start to believe that many people in this group have no clue what
BCP stand for.
Now see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_Current_Practice
A Best Current Practice (BCP) means that a certain manner of proceeding is
in general the most logical choice -- a de facto standard of sorts
Now let's analyze that:
In every civilization that I have seen, those that fail to behave correctly,
will have to live with the sanctions.
If you break a law, then you will be punished.
If you break a law accidently or willfully does not matter in most
civilizations.
If you are speeding and you get caught, then you will be charged / your
license will be suspended.
I do not know of any civilization that handles such cases different.
Those which do damage to others are responsible for that and have to pay for
the damage.
That is a worldwide valid accepted proceeding , you can say it is de facto
WORLD STANDARD.
Now try to think logic:
What will be the most logical choice to deal with offenders on the Internet?
Yes - You guess it - They should be punished.
Who should therfore pay for the damage done by a system on the internet?
You guess it - The person that is responsible for said system.
Exactly that is what UCEPROTECT's listing / delisting policy does.
It does not matter if UCEPROTECT is the only DNSBL left that has chosen the
most logical way - SORBS (no matter we (tinw) like it or not) and UCEPROTECT
have set the de facto standard for DNSBL's in 2003
when we (tinw) begun charging listees. Furthermore the Backscatterer-DNSBL
is also charging for expedited delisting since 2007 and there is also
another public DNSBL that is charging for expedited delisting,
which has no relationship with the UCEPROTECT-Network, namely the INPS-DNSBL
See: http://dnsbl.inps.de/index.cgi?lang=en&site=00011
So we know of at least 3 DNSBL's that are charging listees with removal or
expedited removal fees.
I have given public proof to the audience that UCEPROTECT's policies are in
fact a best current practice.
Logically that also means that charging users of DNSBL's instead of listees
is the most unlogic way to run a DNSBL (One could also claim it to be the
worst practice)
So to have wordings in it like:
Therefore, negative-connotation DNSBLs MUST not charge fees or
Require donations for delisting or "faster handling", and it is
RECOMMENDED that such DNSBLs that do charge fees or require donations
Not be used
clearly smells like an attempt to rule independent DNSBL's because the
author of the BCP did not like
the current best practice for whatever reason and has managed to sell the
worst possible practice as best current practice to this big parts of this
group..
Q.E.D. Since in fact the "draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07" does not
represent a Best Current Practice it has to be replaced with one that doe no
longer contain the complete section 2.2.5.
Regards
Claus von Wolfhausen
Technical Director
UCEPROTECT-Network
http://www.uceprotect.net
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg