On 2008-03-31 08:55:02 -0400, Andrew Kirch wrote: > SM wrote: > > At 22:29 30-03-2008, Douglas Otis wrote: > >> Automatic expiration for automated lists? Well, we know that 8 years > >> isn't long enough. I don't know what it should be. 20 years? > > > > The DNSL operator is free to have an expiration of 20 years. This > > draft is a BCP. It's up the operator to determine whether they wish > > to follow it or not > > Speaking as a DNSBL operator it'd be easier if the BCP were set up such > that we can follow it rather than having to explain to each and every > twit who wants to play lawyer why we don't follow it. If this is to be > a set of best common practices lets ensure people can use them. (this > really should go without saying) I think that "best current practice" should be exactly that: *Best* current practice, not the lowest common denominator. It is expected that some or even many will have to change their operation if they want to conform to BCP, and some may find it unfeasible or not worth the trouble. I don't really see the problem with this point, though. At least one of the authors is of the opinion that for a list which explicitely documents the responsiveness of the provider as a criterion, periodically checking whether the provider has responded conforms to this point: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg/current/msg13420.html (Personally, I would add that the DNSBL maintainer should also periodically check whether the netblock still belongs to the same provider) I would expect that a manually maintained list has a lot more problems with "2.2.3. Removals SHOULD Be Prompt". hp -- _ | Peter J. Holzer | It took a genius to create [TeX], |_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | and it takes a genius to maintain it. | | | hjp at hjp.at | That's not engineering, that's art. __/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- David Kastrup in comp.text.tex
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg