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

Tony Hansen <tony@att.com> Mon, 10 November 2008 04:41 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 BCAF43A69DA; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 20:41:02 -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 7B81E3A69DA for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 20:41:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 QE3N6ul7nsTO for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 20:41:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail146.messagelabs.com (mail146.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.147]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 959EC3A69D6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 20:40:59 -0800 (PST)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: tony@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-10.tower-146.messagelabs.com!1226292055!4841295!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.128.141]
Received: (qmail 25255 invoked from network); 10 Nov 2008 04:40:55 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp9.sbc.com (HELO flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com) (144.160.128.141) by server-10.tower-146.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 10 Nov 2008 04:40:55 -0000
Received: from enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAA4esKU016996 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 20:40:54 -0800
Received: from klph001.kcdc.att.com (klph001.kcdc.att.com [135.188.3.11]) by flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAA4eock016499 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 20:40:51 -0800
Received: from kcdc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by klph001.kcdc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id mAA4eo6B010662 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 22:40:50 -0600
Received: from maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by klph001.kcdc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id mAA4ejXS010631 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 22:40:45 -0600
Received: from [135.210.40.10] (unknown[135.210.40.10](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20081110044044gw100nqh22e> (Authid: tony); Mon, 10 Nov 2008 04:40:45 +0000
Message-ID: <4917BB4B.8000802@att.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2008 23:40:43 -0500
From: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
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>
In-Reply-To: <278E245FD800CC334CA5100F@klensin-asus.icannmeeting.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
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

I'm personally very interested in getting the format for querying DNS
*white* lists standardized. I want to be able to use DNSWLs as part of
*positive reputation* checking: given an *authenticated* domain name
(say, with DKIM), can we say something positive about them beyond "they
send email"?

The protocol described in this draft covers both cases, both positive
and negative checking.

While the majority of the examples in the document concentrates on
negative examples, the protocol *is* useful for the positive case.

Does anyone have issues with the use of this protocol for WHITE lists?

	Tony Hansen
	tony@att.com

John C Klensin wrote:
> Sadly, I have to agree with Keith.   While these lists are a
> fact of life today, and I would favor an informational document
> or document that simply describes how they work and the issues
> they raise, standardizing them and formally recommending their
> use is not desirable at least without some major changes in our
> email model and standards for what gets addresses onto --and,
> more important, off of-- those lists.
> 
>     john
> 
> 
> --On Friday, 07 November, 2008 18:38 -0500 Keith Moore
> <moore@network-heretics.com> wrote:
> 
>> DNSBLs work to degrade the interoperability of email, to make
>> its delivery less reliable and system less accountable for
>> failures.  They do NOT meet the "no known technical omissions"
>> criterion required of standards-track documents.
>>
>> The fact that they are widely used is sad, not a justification
>> for standardization.

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