[Asrg] Round one modifications to DNSBL BCP draft.

[Andrew D Kirch]

Al Iverson wrote:
> MAPS seems to be the only one pushing for inclusion of this
> requirement. Unless there's strong evidence that other BLs find it to
> be a best practice, I say we call the discussion closed on this point
> and move on.
>
> It's not only too "type of BL" specific, it seems to be specific only
> to a single BL.
>
> Regards,
> Al Iverson
>   

one last thought, just because this is struck down now does not mean 
that MAPS should not consider submitting an optional extension to this 
draft in the ongoing process of maintaining the RFC.  My statement that 
we don't use this means it is by no means a BCP, however any DNSBL 
operator should be looking to increase the quality of the data.  If you 
guys really want this standardized, draft it, and submit it for review 
on a stand alone basis.  I'll be more than happy to review a formal 
draft on this process and render my opinions (which I'm sure will be 
many) on this separate draft.  I will probably write additional drafts 
to expand and augment this once we see how it is received, and where 
this process goes next.  This document should be, as was mentioned 
earlier the lowest current denominator among major DNSBL's.

Andrew