Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, was several messages

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





Al Iverson wrote:
I think anonymous may be a bit better in this context, because
otherwise the conversation degenerates into an argument about some
particular DNSBL, instead of a discussion about DNSBLs in general.

I think a lot of us had a pretty good idea which DNSBL is usually the
one in question when people are complaining....


The difficulty is that the current line of argument is that because some DNSBLs are operated badly, DNSBLs are bad.

For any interesting capability, there will always be some bad actors using it. So the argument that, therefore, the capability is unworthy of standardization is problematic.

d/

--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]