Re: several messages

David Romerstein <romer@hanov3r.com> Wed, 12 November 2008 19:18 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 16AE028C10A; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:18:30 -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 866103A6981 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:18:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 EA0Y8uaXM-n4 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:18:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from toro.popovich.net (toro.popovich.net [66.207.166.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA6DF3A63EC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:18:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from toro.popovich.net (toro [127.0.0.1]) by toro.popovich.net (8.14.2/8.13.1) with ESMTP id mACJIOAC018747 for <ietf@ietf.org> env-from (romer@hanov3r.com); Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:18:24 -0800
Received: from localhost (romer@localhost) by toro.popovich.net (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) with ESMTP id mACJIOxO018744 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:18:24 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: toro.popovich.net: romer owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:18:24 -0800
From: David Romerstein <romer@hanov3r.com>
X-X-Sender: romer@toro.popovich.net
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: several messages
In-Reply-To: <004d01c944fb$07a7fe60$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0811121117180.8743@toro.popovich.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0811111552410.4831-100000@citation2.av8.net> <200811120023.TAA05922@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG> <004d01c944fb$07a7fe60$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
MIME-Version: 1.0
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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Randy Presuhn wrote:

> Agreed, but if those analogies are correct, they also undermine the argument.
> Neither the email sender nor the recipient (the ones to whom email is most
> important) typically have any voice whatsoever in the selection of the DNSBL.

End recipients *absolutely* have a voice in the DNSbl selection process. 
They have the option of voting with their feet if their ISP chooses a 
DNSbl that negatively impacts them.

-- D

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