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

[Chris Lewis]

Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 12:58:24PM +1100, Matthew Sullivan wrote:
>> Seems a lot of people forgot what SPF gives/does not give.
> 
> I'm well aware of SPF (and DKIM, and SenderID).  Whatever their
> theoretical merits, I don't consider them worthy of serious operational
> consideration, as spammers/phishers already have the ability to render
> them moot whenever it pleases them to do so.  But regardless of that
> debate, which is arguably off-topic here, I don't believe they should
> be mentioned in a BCP about DNSBLs.

Agreed: SPF is out of scope for the document despite it being DNS-based, 
as is, for example, filtering based on the presence or absence of 
PTRs/rDNS.  It's so far out of scope that it's probably not worth the 
bits to declare it out of scope.