[Asrg] Another dnsbl draft, now standards flavored

[John Levine]

>that IPV6 doesn't have such a range, I suggested using the
>RFC1918-equivalent range fc00:: /7 instead.  It's sort of like
>192.168.0.0 /16, but with a lot more room.

I don't have strong opinions about what the test entry should be,
but it seems a poor idea to make it an address that might actually
appear on a network.  Where's fc00:: defined?  I don't see it in
RFC 4291.

Also, to pile on to other comments, the data in DNSBLs is always A and TXT
records.  The A record isn't an address, it's either a bit mask or a bunch
of subfields, and I see no reason to change it just because the names change.

R's,
John