IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Last Call: draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl (DNS Blacklists and Whitelists)

<michael.dillon@bt.com> Tue, 11 November 2008 14:54 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 89D3828C134; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 06:54:36 -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 EC5A93A6B1B for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 06:54:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799]
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 oCuQJGeJ0Vvg for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 06:54:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp3.smtp.bt.com (smtp3.smtp.bt.com [217.32.164.138]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECEF23A6A04 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 06:54:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net ([193.113.30.61]) by smtp3.smtp.bt.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:54:29 +0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: RE: Last Call: draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl (DNS Blacklists and Whitelists)
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:53:50 -0000
Message-ID: <C0F2465B4F386241A58321C884AC7ECC094C25F4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
In-Reply-To: <20081111143849.GA13960@mit.edu>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
thread-topic: Last Call: draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl (DNS Blacklists and Whitelists)
Thread-Index: AclEC1I/zNRLSkq3RAqml5Yh4/nl/AAARcZA
From: michael.dillon@bt.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Nov 2008 14:54:29.0513 (UTC) FILETIME=[661BC790:01C9440D]
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

> there's a lot of evil e-mail messages out there; the cost of 
> letting even one of those messages through is unacceptable, 
> so false positives are OK. 

This is precisely the sort of thing that should have been 
covered in much more detail in the Security Considerations
section of the draft.

> I have no problem with the IETF documenting the world as it exists.
> That's what an informational track RFC does.  

> (where, "oh well, we'll just block the whole /48 or /32" 
> might have unfortunate side effects not forseen yet)

Again, this is missing from the Security Considerations.

--Michael Dillon
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email