On 04/17, John Levine wrote:
Barring strenuous objection, I'll say that we have RG consensus
to publish it.
No strenuous objection.
Consequent removals (if the conditions for removal is met) should be
"is" should be "are".
This has often results in great consternation
"results" should be "resulted".
Some mail systems are unable to differentiate between these various
results or flags, however, so a public DNSBL SHOULD NOT include
opposing or widely different meanings -- such as 127.0.0.23 for
"sends good mail" and 127.0.0.99 for "sends bad mail" -- within the
same DNS zone.
I'm doing exactly what this says I SHOULD NOT - listing "sends good mail"
and "sends bad mail" values in the same zone. Because I have no interest
in usability directly by software incapable of differentiating (like
postfix's reject_rbl_client, which I have personally found very useful).
And I think that's fine. I also think its web page makes it clear enough
that such use would not work.
I might add to the existing text ", unless there is no interest in
compatibility with systems incapable of such differentiation". Or you
could just leave it, it won't hurt anybody.
I'm talking about the IP reputation thing I mentioned here not long ago -
it works about as expected, great for people providing data, still not
enough data to work great for people not providing data -
http://www.chaosreigns.com/iprep/
So I'd love to get data from more people.
I apologize for not reading this sooner. It is pretty painfully boring,
even for people actively interested in the subject.
--
"But do you have any idea how many SuperBalls you could buy if you
actually applied yourself in the world? Probably eleven, but you should
still try." - http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/
http://www.ChaosReigns.com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg