On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 08:18:01AM -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote: > The difficulty is that the current line of argument is that because some > DNSBLs are operated badly, DNSBLs are bad. I think that's not quite fair. My impression is that there is more than one line of argument. Here are some different ones that I have observed in this discussion, some of which seem never to be getting answers. (Or, sometimes, they seem to be getting answers that are counter-arguments the the first. I believe philosophers would call those examples of the straw person fallacy.) 1. Some DNSBLs are bad, therefore all DNSBLs are bad. (The one you note, and which is obviously bogus.) 2. DNSBLs are in themselves bad, because there is no way to guarantee that they won't contain false positives; they are nevertheless possibly useful, but the trade-offs are inadequeately described in the current document. 3. DNSBLs are not in themselves bad, but the implementation of them as described in the current draft (which does describe the current state of the art in DNSBLs) _is_ bad. The current behaviour and the desirable behaviour ought to be separated, and one described while the other is standardized. There are probably other positions I haven't covered here. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxx Shinkuro, Inc. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf