On 3/2/11 11:47 AM, Andrew Kirch wrote:
... After being harassed and sued by a spammer, that legal defense
fund SORBS was running came to my aid big time. I for one support
these measures. DNSBL operators open themselves to huge legal
liability, even when protected by 47 USC 230 (at least in the United
States). Denying them _ANY_ method of revenue generation is quite
frankly wrong, and THAT leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Quite
frankly I believe the entire section is far outside of the scope of a
BCP document.
Agreed.
There might also be two-factor authentication techniques, that could
rely upon SMS for example) which might be seen as a charge. How one
supports a service should be stated, but not dictated as MUSTs by this BCP.
Unfortunately, the basis upon much of the practices advocated are likely
to prove unworkable in the near future. As such, there are far too many
MUSTs.
Also RFC330 should be updated to RFC5735.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg