Steve Linford wrote:
I certainly agree that there are hundreds of small DNSBLs run from kid's
bedrooms which list on incomprehensible wildly over-broad policies and
that such DNSBLs are both antagonistic and useless and as a result are
used by almost nobody - that's 'market force'. But to pretend that the
dozen major DNSBLs make listings based on "unauthenticated rumor" or
"because the IP did not have 'mail.' or 'mx.'" is just silly
mud-slinging itself based on equally "unauthenticated rumor" and is
especially odd if it's coming from within IETF itself.
It's only odd if you refuse to recognize our experiences as valid.
The fact some DNSBLs are in widespread use (I can speak only for
Spamhaus, our DNSBLs are today used by something in the region of 2/3 of
internet networks) is good reason why it's important to publish a
standard and format for the technology.
Wrong. Read RFC 2026 and stop demanding that we change our technical
criteria just for you.
Like everyone we'd like to see poorly managed, arrogant or anonymous
DNSBLs given a high standard to attain ('shape up or ship out'), since
an irresponsible DNSBL listing something for little discernible reason
is what creates "I hate all DNSBLs" poster children. Lets have the
technology, standards and how to do it correctly published for the
future and leave aside silly "I once had a client blacklisted"
arguments. The question "are DNSBLs bad for the world" or "are DNS
queries a bad use" is irrelevant to the need for draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl
and a false argument against it.
I can see no legitimate reason for IETF not publishing
draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl.
The proposal has neither technical soundness nor rough consensus of the
community.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf