On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 05:45:54AM +0200, Fred Baker wrote:
Personally, I think this discussion is getting a little strange. It
reminds me of a rabbi's discussion of what constitutes work and
therefore may not be done on the sabbath.
I agree. Next thing you know, they'll be telling us that "spam" doesn't
refer to Hormel's canned meat product!
That said, Tony's suggestion of "IPv6 whitelist" (and associated
definition) seems fair to me (especially since it's actually the
resolvers rather than the records that are being whitelisted). That
said, the shorthand will be just as confusing to some, since if
"whitelist" really is wedded to spam in your mind, "IPv6 whitelist" will
mean "spam whitelist that uses IPv6" (whatever that means).
Personally, I don't have this problem. I've always understood whitelists
and blacklists to be generic problem-solving tools that happen to be
applied to the spam filtering problem. I'm confident that people who
didn't before will quickly adjust to the terms being used more broadly,
just as they did with "spam" (and "computer").
--
Scott Schmit
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf