Steve Linford wrote:
> 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.
It's only odd if you refuse to recognize our experiences as valid.
> 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.
Wrong. Read RFC 2026 and stop demanding that we change our technical
criteria just for you.
> 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.
The proposal has neither technical soundness nor rough consensus of the
community.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf