Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, was several messages

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com> Thu, 13 November 2008 18:08 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3620D3A68BC; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:08:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8727D3A68BC for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:08:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.937
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.937 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.662, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yQH8Rm6C-TNV for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:08:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C68153A67AA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:08:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from crankycanuck.ca (CPE001b63afe888-CM001adea9c5a6.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.236.211.160]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 660432FE9555 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:08:43 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:08:41 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, was several messages
Message-ID: <20081113180841.GO76118@shinkuro.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0811121942450.12067-100000@egate.xpasc.com> <20081113112302.38928.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <e0c581530811130740g1db5cbfehbcdad361660bf48b@mail.gmail.com> <491C5339.8090801@dcrocker.net> <20081113163833.GN76118@shinkuro.com> <491C699B.4000702@nortel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <491C699B.4000702@nortel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

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@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf