On Mon, 2011-03-07 at 09:13 +0100, Esa Laitinen wrote:
We're beating a dead horse here
Quite - too much effort seems to be concentrating on one piece of
detail.
That said, if we all take a breath and step back a moment, the crux of
the matter appears to me (neither an ISP nor a DNSBL operator, but an
interested observer) to be this:
This discussion is based on a proposed BCP document. That's important:
Best Current Practice.
BCP documents do not preclude operating in a way which is contradictory,
they merely flag those ways as either not being current, or being
acknowledged as not the best way to operate.
Some time ago in this thread a question was asked if anyone knew of any
other currently operating DNSBLs which charge for delisting, or to
expedite delisting. I do not recall an answer being forthcoming.
From a completely apolitical standpoint (acknowledging that there may be
some smaller DNSBL operators who aren't engaged here operating DNSBLs
which have a very local user base and therefore aren't represented here)
that indicates that payment for delisting or expedited delisting is
*not* a widely held current practice. Ergo, it is not "best" or
"current".
I would like to propose the following change to 2.2.5, which I hope
covers the controversy in words which are slightly less controversial:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.2.5 Payment to DNSBL operators
It is widely considered appropriate for a DNSBL to charge for
access to it by its users - the definition of a commercial
DNSBL.
However, the practise of requiring a listee to pay for delisting
from a negative connotation DNSBL (used by subscribers, paid or
otherwise, for blocking purposes) is widely considered not to be
appropriate. This also applies to charges made for expedited
delisting from a negative connotation DNSBL, for example after a
malware infection or other temporary condition is cleared.
Negative-connotation DNSBLs MUST NOT charge fees or require
donations for delisting or expedited delisting. Such a practise
is controversial and likely to damage the reputation of the
DNSBL or the DNSBL operator and may render the DNSBL less useful
than intended.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've stuck with MUST NOT there, because the actual best and current
practice is exactly that. Feel free to throw it out with the bathwater.
Graeme
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg