On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 02:18:21PM -0000,
John Levine <johnl@xxxxxxxx> wrote
a message of 55 lines which said:
> All of these questions have come up before on the various lists
> where this draft was developed, but I suppose it's worth going
> through
That's the point of an IETF-Wide Last Call. I'm not a participant in
the ASRG.
> Because the value isn't an address, it's a 32 bit value typically
> interpreted as bitfields, which happens to be most easily
> transmitted in an A record. I've rewritten that part of the doc a
> few times trying to make that clear, but I'd be happy to accept
> language which makes it clearer.
After "Each entry in the DNSxL MUST have an A record.", add "The A
record MUST NOT be interpreted as an IPv4 address. It is an opaque
value, whose presence simply means that the name or address queried is
actually listed in the DNSxL."
> Incidentally, although it may still be the conventional wisdom in the
> IETF that DNSBLs don't work and aren't useful,
No, it's just experience. The last funny case is inside France Telecom
(French largest ISP) where one mail server refused another one because
it was blacklisted :-)
< orange.net #4.0.0 X-SMTP-Server; delivery temporarily suspended: host
relais-ias89.francetelecom.com[193.251.215.89] refused to talk to me: 450 4.7.1
Service temporarily unavailable; Client host [193.252.22.118] blocked using Trend
Micro Network Reputation Service. Please see
http://www.mail-abuse.com/cgi-bin/lookup?ip_address=193.252.22.118; Mail from
193.252.22.118 deferred using Trend Micro Email Reputation database. Please see
<http://www.mail-abuse.com/cgi-bin/lookup?193.252.22.118>>
> It should of course say A and/or AAAA record.
Or use RFC 5321 vocabulary and write "address record".
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf