I'm violating my normal rate limits here, but since this is the second
time today someone twitted me for this, I need to clarify.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:53:31PM -0500, Chris Lewis wrote:
3. DNSBLs are not in themselves bad, but the implementation of them
as described in the current draft (which does describe the current
state of the art in DNSBLs) _is_ bad. The current behaviour and the
desirable behaviour ought to be separated, and one described while the
other is standardized.
Behaviour of DNSBL != information transfer protocol.
What I meant by "behaviour" above is "how the protocol behaves", and
not "how the administrators behave" or "how things behave given this
or that data". This is a failure in my formulation, and I regret it.
As I noted (with Olafur) in our posting the other day, the problem _I_
have with DNSBLs is that they're doing fairly serious damage to the
DNS protocol. That's a fact of life given the deployed software, but
I don't think it's a good thing.
I refuse to state an opinion on how DNSBLs ought to be operated so
that users' expectations of behaviour of the service are met.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs(_at_)shinkuro(_dot_)com
Shinkuro, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf