ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Asrg] Rough consensus on pay to delist

2011-03-02 13:02:40
On 03/02/2011 12:22 PM, Chris Lewis wrote:
On 3/2/2011 11:29 AM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Andrew Kirch wrote:

Concur here.  I think Claus makes a valid point in that expedited
service might require expedited cost.  I am also concerned that this is
in direct contradiction of existing DNSBL practices, such as SORBS.

Umm it does?
  (FYI SORBS has not imposed any fines since Oct 12, 2010 and the policy
on the website has been updated to indicate there is no such thing as
the SORBS fine any more)

Indeed, I think that this an important point.  Even though a DNSBL has
ceased using the practise, it's still used as an argument as if it was
still being used, and in many places still used as a reason to
avoid/disparage the DNSBL.

True, unfortunately.  On that one hand, that shows how once adopted, its
hard to ever make the "bad smell" go away, but on the other hand, the
prevalence of using outright false information to disparage DNSBLs, and
how event those with no axe to grind can so often fall for the
misinformation.

Even after being mentioned numerous times _here_ this meme still
continues to influence the discourse long after it become invalid - and
remember, SORBS is in support of 2.2.5.

Further, why shouldn't a "Best Current Practises" document point out
that a particular existing practise isn't "best"?  Isn't that what BCPs
are supposed to do if necessary?

It still is not "in direct contradiction of existing DNSBL practices,
such as SORBS" since that is not SORBS's current DNSBL practice.

-- 
Joe Sniderman <joseph(_dot_)sniderman(_at_)thoroquel(_dot_)org>
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg