Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, was several messages

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

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
[e-mail]
Shinkuro, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf