[Asrg] DNSBL BCP 04 Re: draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists draft updated.

[SM]

Hi Chris,
At 09:19 21-07-2008, Chris Lewis wrote:
>My first reaction was "if I had meant that implication, I would have 
>stated it explicitly".  But that's rather flippant.

I understand that but some people might not read it that way.

>There's an important point in that statement (eg: don't blame the 
>PBL for people doing deep received header tracing), so we can't lose 
>it. But subsequent wording suggestions didn't seem to quite fix the 
>perceptual problem.
>
>I've come up with a different approach - rather than trying to do a 
>SHOULD/MUST etc, I'm just going to provide an existing example, worded thusly:
>
>------------------------------------------------------
>For example, one DNSBL requires, if the DNSBL is used contrary
>to their usage instructions, that the DNSBL user should not identify
>the DNSBL being used, and further that it is the DNSBL user's 
>responsibility to mitigate the effect of the listing locally.
>------------------------------------------------------
>
>Whaddya think?

That sounds better.  I'll suggest a rewording:

    For example, one of the requirements of some DNSBLs is that if 
the DNSBL is used
    contrary to the usage instructions, then the DNSBL user should 
not identify the
    DNSBL being used.  Furthermore, it is the DNSBL user's responsibility to
    mitigate the effect of the listing locally.

>I could put a link into the specific DNSBL's policy that says that 
>as a informative reference, but I've avoided calling out specific 
>DNSBLs so far, and I'd like to keep it that way.

I think it's better to avoid such links.

Regards,
-sm