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

From: John Levine <johnl at iecc.com>
To: ietf at ietf.org
Cc: fw at deneb.enyo.de
Date: 16 Nov 2008 21:46:27 -0000
In-reply-to: <87vdunqxlo.fsf at mid.deneb.enyo.de>

>The expectation is that error messages generated from TXT records
>contain the actual IP addresses which triggered the DNSBL lookups.  As
>a result, if you list a /16 (say), you need publish 65,536 different
>TXT records.

Some do, some don't.  In any event I agree that DNSSEC is not ideally
suited to signing DNSBLs, but I would think that with some judicious
partitioning into subzones the problem wouldn't be intractable.

R's,
John
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

References:
- Re: Last Call: draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl (DNS Blacklists and Whitelists)
  - From: Florian Weimer

Prev by Date: Re: Last Call: draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl (DNS Blacklists and Whitelists)
Next by Date: Re: Last Call: draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl (DNS Blacklists and Whitelists)
Previous by thread: Re: Last Call: draft-irtf-asrg-blinds (DNS Blacklists and Whitelists)
Next by thread: Re: Last Call: draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl (DNS Blacklists and Whitelists)
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: Last Call: draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl (DNS Blacklists and Whitelists)

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