[Asrg] Round 2 of the DNSBL BCP - "collateral damage"

[Larry M. Smith]

Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> This is a followup to one particular section:
> 
> On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 07:42:03PM -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
>>> 3.6.  Use of Collateral Damage MUST Be Disclosed
>> There's no such thing as collateral damage.  I'm going to write
>> a separate message about that because it's too long to include here.
> 
> This phrase should be excised from this document.  There's no such
> thing as "collateral damage" because there's no such thing as
> "damage" in this context.
> 

IMHO, The term "collateral damage" has been well established in DNSBL 
vernacular to mean listing of additional non-spamming objects in an 
attempt to promote policy change, or possibly a listing error.

Perhaps it could be defined in the document, but I believe the term more 
or less stands on its own.  See 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_damage