[Asrg] Another dnsbl draft, now standards flavored

[John Levine]

>Some hours later, that's wrong.  Why do they need their own test
>entry, they could as well support 2.0.0.127 like IPv4 lists, if
>the only purpose is to check that the list is alive and kicking.

Many DNSBLs are operated by specialized servers that synthesize the
records from lists of CIDR ranges.  The IPv6 test entries really need
to be IPv6 addresses or you're demanding special code in the server
for the test addresses.

I picked ::2 as the test address because it was next to ::1,
just like 127.0.0.2 is next to 127.0.0.1.


R's,
John