[Asrg] Round 2 of the DNSBL BCP

[J D Falk]

Matthew Sullivan wrote:

>>>>    Some mail systems are unable to differentiate between these
>>>>    various results or flags, however, so a public DNSBL MUST NOT
>>>>    include opposing or widely different meanings -- such as
>>>>    127.0.0.23 for "sends good mail" and 127.0.0.99 for "sends bad
>>>>    mail" -- within the same DNS zone.
>>>> 
>>> Not sure why this is a MUST NOT. If people are dumb enough to use a
>>> mixed list in a broken way they get what they deserve. What's the
>>> justification?
>>> 
>>  "Suicidal administrator" prevention.  JD suggested it.  I like it,
but
>> I'm not committed to it.  Thoughts?
> 
> I disagree, simply:  not in the same zone - but no problem with the
> same DNSBl.

It already says "within the same DNS zone" at the end of the paragraph,
but I can see how that might be confusing.  Any suggestions for
re-wording?


On the same topic, Peter Holzer wrote:

> The A record could be used to encode a range. For example 127.0.1.x 
> could mean "x % of the observed messages from this source are spam"
> (in fact I think I've seen at least one such list). Clearly 127.0.1.0 
> and 127.0.1.100 have opposing meanings, but I don't see this as bad.

That's not the usual binary result, however, and can't be used in the
same way -- so I'd see it as a reasonable exception to the Best Current
Practice.