I'm coming in a bit late into this strange argument, but from what
I'm reading it sounds like someone *from IETF* is contesting the need
for DNSBLs and thus the need for draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl and on grounds
which are misguided at best.
I certainly agree that there are hundreds of small DNSBLs run from
kid's bedrooms which list on incomprehensible wildly over-broad
policies and that such DNSBLs are both antagonistic and useless and
as a result are used by almost nobody - that's 'market force'. But to
pretend that the dozen major DNSBLs make listings based on
"unauthenticated rumor" or "because the IP did not have 'mail.' or
'mx.'" is just silly mud-slinging itself based on equally
"unauthenticated rumor" and is especially odd if it's coming from
within IETF itself.
The fact some DNSBLs are in widespread use (I can speak only for
Spamhaus, our DNSBLs are today used by something in the region of 2/3
of internet networks) is good reason why it's important to publish a
standard and format for the technology.
Like everyone we'd like to see poorly managed, arrogant or anonymous
DNSBLs given a high standard to attain ('shape up or ship out'),
since an irresponsible DNSBL listing something for little discernible
reason is what creates "I hate all DNSBLs" poster children. Lets have
the technology, standards and how to do it correctly published for
the future and leave aside silly "I once had a client blacklisted"
arguments. The question "are DNSBLs bad for the world" or "are DNS
queries a bad use" is irrelevant to the need for draft-irtf-asrg-
dnsbl and a false argument against it.
I can see no legitimate reason for IETF not publishing draft-irtf-
asrg-dnsbl.
Steve Linford
The Spamhaus Project
http://www.spamhaus.org
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf