[Asrg] arguing about terms (was RE: Round 2 of the DNSBL BCP - "collateral damage")

[Seth]

"J D Falk" <jdfalk at returnpath.net> wrote:

> And yet, if you ask pretty much any DNSBL user what a DNSBL is for,
> they'll say it's for blocking mail.

If you're a little more explicit, they'll admit it's for advice on
which email to block.

> If you ask anyone whose IP (or other identifier) has been listed
> what the DNSBL did, they'll say it blocked their mail.

Or, it advised others to block their mail.

> So, the core question: is this BCP written for the most repetitively
> pedantic of anti-spammers (some of whom I see on this list -- hi,
> guys!), or is it written for reasonable people?

The latter, which is not a reason for using imprecise terminology.

Seth