> That's a rather narrow view. Very large numbers of people think that > Instant Messaging is a far superior alternative to DNSBLs, not to > mention VoIP, web forums and other variations on the theme. I can certainly believe that there are people who think that, but if those very large numbers of people aren't even aware that IM, VoIP, and web forums also use DNSBLs and DNSWLs to manage their abuse problems, it's hard to see how their impressions would be helpful here. > I think it is a positive thing to document the technology of DNSBLs > but I have no idea why this has come to the IETF. As I said a few messages up in this string, although the structure of IPv4 DNSxLs has long since been cast in concrete, IPv6 DNSxLs aren't that mature yet and one of my goals was to make them interoperate equally well so, for example, if you find you're using cruddy ones you can easily switch to better ones. R's, John _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf