[Asrg] Round 2 of the DNSBL BCP

[Matthew Sullivan]

Andrew D Kirch wrote:
> Matt Sergeant 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?
>>
>> Matt.
>>
>>   
>>     
> This isn't just broken lists it's broken software.  Not all software 
> which uses DNSBL's differentiates by returned response.
>   

Valid point and a separate section on client configuration/usage or even 
a separate RFC would be a good idea.

/ Mat

(not read the draft through yet)