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

Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net> Sat, 08 November 2008 16:53 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 4C56F3A6A29; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 08:53:45 -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 5EA423A6A98 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 08:53:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 RrXIoPWA3W+F for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 08:53:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (mail.mipassoc.org [IPv6:2001:470:1:76:0:ffff:4834:7146]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD3523A6A29 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 08:53:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.3] (adsl-67-124-149-194.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.124.149.194]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mA8Grbi6031075 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 8 Nov 2008 08:53:37 -0800
Message-ID: <4915C410.8060507@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2008 08:53:36 -0800
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@networkresonance.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <20081108164649.8111750822@romeo.rtfm.com>
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/8592/Fri Nov 7 21:40:23 2008 on sbh17.songbird.com
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Sat, 08 Nov 2008 08:53:37 -0800 (PST)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org


Eric Rescorla wrote:
> Speaking as someone who just got burned by exactly such a list,
> I think I need to agree with John: I don't object to the IETF
> publishing an informational document on this, but a PS implies
> that IETF endorses the practice, which I don't think we should do.


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/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf