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

[SM]

At 18:25 04-04-2008, John Levine wrote:
>Personally, I think that collateral damage is a reasonable term, and
>all of the dnsbls don't block mail weasel wording is counterproductive,
>since we're talking about policy, not code.

I think so too but some people commented that it was inaccurate.

At 19:11 04-04-2008, Seth wrote:
>Spot the hidden assumptions.
>
>They aren't true.

See above.

>Whose theory is that?

That's what the text in draft-01 says.

>So why bring it up in the first place?

I reworded that section.  I'm not going to argue for or against it.

>How is that not part of the listing criteria in the first place?
>
>"This DNSBL lists all IP addresses if the number of spam-emitting IPs
>in their /24 exceeds 10."  To anybody who can read, that discloses
>whether it may include an IP address that didn't emit spam.

I don't see what the problem is then as the above discloses the scope.

Regards,
-sm