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

[Chris Lewis]

John Levine wrote:
>> Yeah, I think it should be example.com. I think it should be the same
>> type of lookup that you would normally do. I think if you make the
>> test lookup an IP, you will confuse novices into doing IP-based checks
>> by accident.
> 
> Agreed.  Looking at my DNS server logs, the people trying to use my DNSBL
> are confused enough already.

Does any RHSBL or URIBL currently publish a testing procedure?  If 
nobody is, I'm afraid I might have to punt to a "yet to be determined 
common testing mechanism" by the rules of C in BCP.

SURBL _does_ publish IP entries now.

Note that there is no reason why a RHSBL or URIBL couldn't use 127..., 
other than perhaps confusion as to whether the octets should be reversed 
or not.