[Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-01 March 24, 2008

[Chris Lewis]

SM wrote:
> At 16:15 03-04-2008, Douglas Otis wrote:
>> Conclusions reached in the last three paragraphs of section 2.2.3 are
>> naive and wrong.  Strike these paragraphs:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> Another important consideration supporting a "no questions asked"
>> self-removal policy is that it forestalls many conflicts between
>> DNSBL operators and organizations whose IP addresses have been
>> listed.  Such a policy also can be an effective deterrent to legal
>> problems.
>> ---
>>
>> The last sentence in this section could be seen as a threat.  "Such a
>> policy also can be an effective deterrent to legal problems." suggests
>> list operators become liable when adhering to their policy when it
>> differs from this poorly considered and naive recommendation.  Public
> 
> I agree the last sentence should be removed as it's not up to the 
> document to provide legal advice.

Already changed.

> If you don't want it called collateral damage, you can always say:
> 
> 3.6 The scope of the listing MUST be disclosed
> 
> And elaborate on whether the listing identifies individual IP 
> addresses or a range of IP addresses which includes IP addresses 
> under the control of a provider even though those IP addresses are 
> not the source of abusive email.

I like where that's going, I'll run with that for the next iteration.  I 
also will add (perhaps paraphrased) Seth's "This is often (but 
inaccurately) referred to as "collateral damage"".  That would neatly 
connect that section to the concept "colateral damage", but at the same 
time negate much of the (invalid) societal baggage inherent with the term.