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

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Sat, 08 November 2008 16:59 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 2D4443A6960; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 08:59:14 -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 D5DBD3A6960 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 08:59:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.714
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.714 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.086, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 pWnpjyhronFw for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 08:59:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from m1.imap-partners.net (m1.imap-partners.net [64.13.152.131]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AC7D3A691A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 08:59:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lust.indecency.org (adsl-155-115-114.tys.bellsouth.net [72.155.115.114]) by m1.imap-partners.net (MOS 3.10.3-GA) with ESMTP id BED00357 (AUTH admin@network-heretics.com) for ietf@ietf.org; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 08:59:07 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4915C559.2020102@network-heretics.com>
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:59:05 -0500
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Macintosh/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl (DNS Blacklists and Whitelists)
References: <20081107111744.GA31018@nic.fr> <20081107141821.79303.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <45AEC6EF95942140888406588E1A660206A5D881@PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com> <4914D181.9090605@network-heretics.com> <278E245FD800CC334CA5100F@klensin-asus.icannmeeting.org> <20081108164649.8111750822@romeo.rtfm.com> <4915C410.8060507@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <4915C410.8060507@dcrocker.net>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
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

Dave,

you're mischaracterizing the situation and you ought to know better.

basing reputation on IP address is pretty dubious.
transmitting reputation over DNS is not "otherwise-acceptable"

and there's at least some argument to be made that this choice of
mechanism lends itself to abuse, or even encourages it.

and it appears that there's considerably less than rough consensus in
favor of DNSBLs ... especially if you ask people whose mail has been
blocked because of them.

Keith


> Eric,
> 
> Roughly 95% of all mail is spam.  That makes email a pretty onerous
> "practice".
> 
> So we ought to remove standards status for all email specifications.
> 
> Or we could consider keeping mechanism and policy separate,
> standardizing technologies (mechanisms) and refraining from condemning
> them because some operators have misguided policies and use the
> mechanisms badly.
> 
> Really, guys, everything we standardize has examples of misuse.  So that
> hardly makes your current line of argument substantive.
> 
> Are you actually saying that there is something inherently inappropriate
> in having published reputation lists and that a technical standards body
> like the IETF is tasked with rejecting standardization of
> otherwise-acceptable technical specifications because we don't like how
> some people will use them?
> 
> Are you seriously lobbying for the IETF to be an idealistic island that
> ignores rough consensus and very well-established practice among the
> broader Internet community?
> 
> d/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf