Subject: [Asrg] DNSBL BCP DRAFT 02 UPDATE on the IETF web site

From: "Chris Lewis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:43:00 -0400

I have just submitted draft 02 (officially "02", not the "informal 02" I 
emailed a week or so ago here) to the IETF web site, and it's now 
visible as:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-02.txt

In it, amongst the other changes I said I've done earlier, I've redone 
the "collateral damage" section (and moved into Policy), suggested 
_DNSBL_.test for domain-based DNSBL testing, and rearranged the order of 
a few of the sections to better follow a more logically consistent 
document structure (Intro vs. Policy vs. Operational).

Please, in your comments/discussions on this draft, make sure it's 
understood in the subject line that this is the IETF 02, not the 
previously (oops, sorry) emailed 02.  Having discussions under the 
subject line I've used here is fine.  Or, put in "IETF 02".

Did I hit the mark on collateral damage Rich?

Thanks.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: "Al Iverson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:00:59 -0500

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Chris Lewis <[email-masked]> wrote:

Very excellent job, Chris.

>  Did I hit the mark on collateral damage Rich?

Re, this bit:
   Inevitably, some of these listings may impact non-abusive email.
   This has, perhaps inevitably, resulted in some labelling such
   practises by the emotionally loaded term "collateral damage".  In
   this context it has to be remembered that no filtering technique is
   perfect, and that occasional mistake is inevitable no matter what is
   used, DNSBLs or otherwise.

I have no idea off the top of my head for better wording, but I do
worry that the wording relating to mistakes implies that collateral
damage listings are never intentional; always in error. Besides the
potential for untruth there, it gives a listee a huge wedge to use to
complain about the list. "BCP says these kind of listings are
mistakes....and the list won't fix the mistakes!"

I'm fine with it if everyone else is, but I'm curious if others see
this as a potential issue as well.

Best,
Al Iverson

-- 
Al Iverson on Spam and Deliverability, see http://www.spamresource.com
News, stats, info, and commentary on blacklists: http://www.dnsbl.com
My personal website: http://www.aliverson.com -- Chicago, IL, USA
Remove "lists" from my email address to reach me faster and directly.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: "J D Falk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 17:09:39 -0400

>    Inevitably, some of these listings may impact non-abusive email.
This
>    has, perhaps inevitably, resulted in some labelling such practises
by
>    the emotionally loaded term "collateral damage".  In this context
it
>    has to be remembered that no filtering technique is perfect, and
that
>    occasional mistake is inevitable no matter what is used, DNSBLs or
>    otherwise.

Suggested new language:

Inevitably, some of these listings may impact non-abusive messages --
or, in the case of a DNSWL, may permit unwanted messages.  For some
lists, such impact is both intentional and desired.  Either way, this
has resulted in some people labelling such practises by the emotionally
loaded term "collateral damage".  It is entirely incumbent upon the user
of a DNSBL (or any other filtering technique) to find the appropriate
balance of potential risk and potential benefit for their own
environment.

(This last paragraph repeats things said elsewhere in the document
already, but it may be worth repeating.)
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Andrew D Kirch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:11:32 -0400

> this as a potential issue as well.
I've got a mixed opinion here, I'd break that down to say that 
occasional mistake refers to the filtering method (And strictly to the 
e-mail admin's configuration blocking e-mail that's not spam based on 
DNSBL data.  This is however a strict and very semantical reading of 
that paragraph. 
What about:
DNSBL policies vary on how they list and escalate filtering sources of 
abusive content.  This has in the past resulted in email which is not 
spam being blocked by mail servers based on DNSBL input.  This can occur 
in two forms.

1. a DNSBL lists a "grey" source which emits both abusive, and 
non-abusive e-mail which cannot be differentiated by DNS or IP.
2. a DNSBL as part of an "escalation" policy may list blocks of IP space.

DNSBL's SHOULD in the second case disclose and segregate in their 
policies the specific policies and response codes which will contain 
such blocks of IP space.  This would include regional lists, RIR lists, 
dial up user (DUL) lists, and listings of providers which have ongoing 
or widespread abuse problems.  This practice has become labeled by the 
loaded term "collateral damage", but it's use is discouraged.

(NB I did not follow the argument on the use of "collateral damage" in 
the long-winded thread on it's validity, so if the last sentence breaks 
public consensus I am not looking to in any way re-open this argument.  
Please modify it as appropriate and assume good faith).

Andrew

---

From: "Chris Lewis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 23:17:40 -0400

> already, but it may be worth repeating.)

My intent for the "mistake" sentence was an aside to contextualize 
"innocent bystander effect" ("collateral damage") with ordinary FPs in 
any technique - tho I can see how it can conflate into the CD bit.  A 
late addition on the rewrite.  I could simply leave it out and sidestep 
the concern.  But I think JD's language is better, and perhaps says much 
of what I wanted the "mistake" sentence to mean.

I haven't said "escalation" (either the SPEWS or the SBL variant) to 
apply pressure on providers.  Do I need to?  I don't think so - I think 
we reinforce the "right to list, right to decide to use any list" 
sufficiently, and explicitly mentioned collateral damage, so it's not 
necessary.

I think Andrew's proposed rewrite introduces more detail than necessary, 
tho it does use the term escalation.  Broad listings aren't always 
escalation.

I haven't said anything about "mistaken/accidental" listings.  I could 
just put a sentence into the "Removals must be prompt" section.   Thoughts?
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Andrew D Kirch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 01:29:01 -0400

> tho it does use the term escalation.  Broad listings aren't always 
I agree it's verbose but I've also run into quite a few mail admins who, 
intellectually simply aren't. 
I adjusted my words accordingly.
Andrew
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg