On 2/27/11 9:30 PM, Claus v. Wolfhausen wrote:
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*/
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto>/* standard of sorts*/
Please compare "de facto" with "de jure"
//
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.
A BCP is not a law.
(snip)
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
Two DNSBLs going against what many have already advised them not to do,
does not make a "standard" of any sort.
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,
Many people don't see Backscatterer's policies as a separate iteration
from UCEprotect's policies. They are being run by the same people.
which has no relationship with the UCEPROTECT-Network, namely the INPS-DNSBL.
See:http://dnsbl.inps.de/index.cgi?lang=en&site=00011
<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.
Three, well really two DNSBLs, out of *hundreds* of DNSBLs past and
present doesn't make 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/
At this point, with statements like this, I have to wonder what your
purpose is here. Showing two DNSBLs that do something one way, while
ignoring countless others that do it the other way, and using those two
as your proof that things should be done the way that you want them to
be done, doesn't strengthen your argument.
clearly smells like an attempt to rule independent DNSBL's because the author
of the BCP did not like
Discussion of this BCP goes all the way back to at least 2004 and has
had many, many people put their input into it. My view of the list-serv
traffic only goes back to 2008, so I'll let someone else count how many
people may have helped to shape the current document.
SgtChains
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg