Re: Last Call: draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl (DNS Blacklists and Whitelists)

[Tony Hansen <tony at att.com>]

I'm personally very interested in getting the format for querying DNS
*white* lists standardized. I want to be able to use DNSWLs as part of
*positive reputation* checking: given an *authenticated* domain name
(say, with DKIM), can we say something positive about them beyond "they
send email"?

The protocol described in this draft covers both cases, both positive
and negative checking.

While the majority of the examples in the document concentrates on
negative examples, the protocol *is* useful for the positive case.

Does anyone have issues with the use of this protocol for WHITE lists?

	Tony Hansen
	tony at att.com

John C Klensin wrote:
> Sadly, I have to agree with Keith.   While these lists are a
> fact of life today, and I would favor an informational document
> or document that simply describes how they work and the issues
> they raise, standardizing them and formally recommending their
> use is not desirable at least without some major changes in our
> email model and standards for what gets addresses onto --and,
> more important, off of-- those lists.
> 
>     john
> 
> 
> --On Friday, 07 November, 2008 18:38 -0500 Keith Moore
> <moore at network-heretics.com> wrote:
> 
>> DNSBLs work to degrade the interoperability of email, to make
>> its delivery less reliable and system less accountable for
>> failures.  They do NOT meet the "no known technical omissions"
>> criterion required of standards-track documents.
>>
>> The fact that they are widely used is sad, not a justification
>> for standardization.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf