Re: IP-based reputation services vs. DNSBL (long)

From: Eliot Lear <lear at cisco.com>
To: michael.dillon at bt.com
Cc: ietf at ietf.org
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:35:07 +0100
In-reply-to: <C0F2465B4F386241A58321C884AC7ECC0945239E at E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
References: <C0F2465B4F386241A58321C884AC7ECC0945239E at E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>


On 11/11/08 10:22 AM, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:

DNSBLs are a temporary band-aid solution for a badly broken
Internet email architecture. They have provided the community
with an education but that doesn't mean that they should be
standardised by the IETF.

DNSBLs are over 10 years old and are NOT going away any time soon, andso any notion of temporary must be placed into geological context for itto make sense.

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

References:
- RE: IP-based reputation services vs. DNSBL (long)
  - From: michael.dillon

Prev by Date: Re: IP-based reputation services vs. DNSBL (long)
Next by Date: Re: IP-based reputation services vs. DNSBL (long)
Previous by thread: Re: IP-based reputation services vs. DNSBL (long)
Next by thread: Re: IP-based reputation services vs. DNSBL (long)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: IP-based reputation services vs. DNSBL (long)

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.