On 3/4/11 12:35 PM, John Levine wrote:
Denying them _ANY_ method of revenue generation ...
Since nobody's proposing that, can we stop now?
You really mean ANY and ALL.
Exclusion methods for those seeking faster service might be facilitated
through additional forms of authentication, which might then require
nominal fees.
2.2.5. Conflict of Interest
.---
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.
'---
Fees may result as nominal charges related to authentication methods.
Such authentication might be needed to support services highly prone to
abuse. Practical methods MUST BE allowed when mitigating flooding aimed
a inflicting greater expense or the degradation of services.
Responding to SMS might prove practical, but would be in conflict with
the premise stated in 2.2.4 of MUST NOT charge fees in responding to a
request. Also, requiring a donation to independent third-parties
explicitly avoids this being a conflict of interest.
This section is wrong and poorly considered, especially since most spam
is carried over bot-nets where DoS issues are a greater concern. None
of this should be a problem as long as listing is made in good faith,
and is normally corrected without requests being made. Why expose these
services litigation on the basis of nominal fees commonly used elsewhere.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg