Dave CROCKER wrote: > The difficulty is that the current line of argument is that because some > DNSBLs are operated badly, DNSBLs are bad. I have a strong suspicion that poor design of the DNSBL protocol (and/or its interface to SMTP and NDNs) encourages more badness than is needed. For instance, what would happen if mail servers provided feedback to both senders (on a per message basis in the form of NDNs) and recipients (say, via a web page that listed messages blocked due to DNSBLs)...in both cases describing which DNSBL blocked the message and what the blocking criteria were? What if recipients could disable blocking on a per-DNSBL basis? Assuming that we're going to have reputation services, I'm looking for ways to make them more accountable/responsible. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf