I'm violating my normal rate limits here, but since this is the second time today someone twitted me for this, I need to clarify. On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:53:31PM -0500, Chris Lewis wrote: > > 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. > > Behaviour of DNSBL != information transfer protocol. What I meant by "behaviour" above is "how the protocol behaves", and not "how the administrators behave" or "how things behave given this or that data". This is a failure in my formulation, and I regret it. As I noted (with Olafur) in our posting the other day, the problem _I_ have with DNSBLs is that they're doing fairly serious damage to the DNS protocol. That's a fact of life given the deployed software, but I don't think it's a good thing. I refuse to state an opinion on how DNSBLs ought to be operated so that users' expectations of behaviour of the service are met. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxx Shinkuro, Inc. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf