On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 07:32:09PM -0500, Chris Lewis wrote:
It's been through at least four iterations on the ASRG, so it already
has been worked on there. Extensively.
Having witnessed those iterations (and contributed in a very minor
way to them), I can report that the process was lively, productive,
and included input from some of the most experienced and knowledgeable
people working in the field. I believe that the current document (thanks
to Chris's excellent stewardship) equitably and honestly represents the
consensus of the participants, and that small consensus in turns fairly
represents the much larger consensus of mail system operators.
This isn't to say that everyone in either group agrees with how
DNSBLs should be *used*: some advocate scoring, some advocate
combination with other methods, and so on. But I think it's
reasonable to presume that anyone using them in any fashion has
signaled their implicit agreement with the notion that DNSBLs should
exist and should be used -- at which point we're back to addressing
BCPs for operating them, and the point of this document.
The thrust of the document is around asserting that the only legitimate
judge of "proper use" is the _user_ of the DNSBL, and establishing a
framework of principles and guidelines by which the user can make
informed choices. The fact that someone else might think there's no
legitimate use has no bearing - it's not their mail server - they have
no say in email acceptance policy.
This is a key point -- one that can't be stressed enough, which is why
I quoted it. No mail server operator is required to provide services
to anyone (absent a contractual obligation or statutory requirement).
So while it's possible that everyone reading this might concur that
that a particular mail server operator is in error by not providing
services to some host/network/domain/user/etc., we don't get a vote.
---Rsk
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf