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

[Steve Linford <[e-mail]>]

I'm coming in a bit late into this strange argument, but from what  
I'm reading it sounds like someone *from IETF* is contesting the need  
for DNSBLs and thus the need for draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl and on grounds  
which are misguided at best.

I certainly agree that there are hundreds of small DNSBLs run from  
kid's bedrooms which list on incomprehensible wildly over-broad  
policies and that such DNSBLs are both antagonistic and useless and  
as a result are used by almost nobody - that's 'market force'. But to  
pretend that the dozen major DNSBLs make listings based on  
"unauthenticated rumor" or "because the IP did not have 'mail.' or  
'mx.'" is just silly mud-slinging itself based on equally  
"unauthenticated rumor" and is especially odd if it's coming from  
within IETF itself.

The fact some DNSBLs are in widespread use (I can speak only for  
Spamhaus, our DNSBLs are today used by something in the region of 2/3  
of internet networks) is good reason why it's important to publish a  
standard and format for the technology.

Like everyone we'd like to see poorly managed, arrogant or anonymous  
DNSBLs given a high standard to attain ('shape up or ship out'),  
since an irresponsible DNSBL listing something for little discernible  
reason is what creates "I hate all DNSBLs" poster children. Lets have  
the technology, standards and how to do it correctly published for  
the future and leave aside silly "I once had a client blacklisted"  
arguments. The question "are DNSBLs bad for the world" or "are DNS  
queries a bad use" is irrelevant to the need for draft-irtf-asrg- 
dnsbl and a false argument against it.

I can see no legitimate reason for IETF not publishing draft-irtf- 
asrg-dnsbl.

   Steve Linford
   The Spamhaus Project
   http://www.spamhaus.org




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