Re: [Add] My principles for discovery

Ralf Weber <> Fri, 27 March 2020 09:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54F9A3A0433 for <>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 02:56:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZjHqr2Ikjrvt for <>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 02:56:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B34C83A0415 for <>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 02:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 107) id 687CC5F408DB; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 10:56:47 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 27E035F40370; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 10:56:47 +0100 (CET)
From: "Ralf Weber" <>
To: "Martin Thomson" <>
Cc: "Vittorio Bertola" <>,
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 10:56:45 +0100
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.1r5671)
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Add] My principles for discovery
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications Doing DNS <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 09:56:52 -0000

On 27 Mar 2020, at 1:44, Martin Thomson wrote:
> Yes, this is the right question to ask, and totally within scope.  I 
> too am not entirely convinced in the value of the complexity trade-off 
> in the specific case you cited, but I also don't know that I really 
> understand how this works from a hollistic perspective either.  I find 
> the idea that I might allow Google (for example) to point me at 
> for the purposes of name resolutions I make within the context 
> of my interactions with Google of interest.
Except that you have no idea when you interact with Google. When you go 
to a website these days (e.g - just tested this now, but 
most sites are the same or similar) you without knowing and without 
being warned (GDPR warning) already have interacted with Google. So that 
is why even for stuff that wants to interact with Google I want them to 
go to my resolver so that I can block it there.

Now I understand that there are other scenarios where distributing 
traffic might better from a privacy perspective, but we should make sure 
that whatever we do we come up with something that allows different ways 
to solve this, which IMHO Tommys draft does.

So long
Ralf Weber