Subject: RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 12:15:49 -0700

Yakov writes:
> There is another BCP that has a similar problem - RFC 2148/BCP 15 -
> "Deployment of the Internet White Pages Service". In particular is
> starts off with the following:

Deployment of what?

Given that Internet White Pages Service does not exist the publication
of a BCP on running it would appear spurious. At the very least the 
contents of the BCP would appear to be as likely to be an example
of what to avoid rather than copy.

> "1. An organization SHOULD publish public E-mail addresses and
>   other public address information about Internet users 
> within their site."

> "2. Most countries have laws concerning publication of 
> information about
> persons. Above and beyond these, the organization SHOULD follow the
> recommendations of [1]."

Given that this is an anti-spam group I suspect that very few people
here are going to argue that (1) constitutes a desirable, let alone
a 'best' practice.

This is another BCP that really should never have seen the light of 
day. Given that the project proposed is a global X.500 directory
it will clearly never see the light in the future either. 

> Section 6 expands on this in detail, with snippets like:
> 
> "Every maintainer of IWPS information should publish data according to
> the national law of the country in which the local database 
> which holds the information resides."

OK are we going to see a statement in the blacklist BCP stating that
blacklists should observe all relevant national laws?

Are we as a minimum going to see a comment to the effect that
'collateral damage' against any third party may constitute tortious
interference with contract?

> THEREFORE, to resolve this issue in regards to this 
> particular document,
> it might be sufficient to include a similar section 
> discussing the legal
> issues and make it clear that the local laws of whatever country the
> blacklist list operator is in, override the recommendations 
> and that the BCP is not meant to go against any existing law.

Well it would be a start, but in that case what will the BCP achieve?
It won't change the behavior of the blacklists, it certainly will not 
affect the behavior of the spammers, it certainly will not provide any
safe harbor in a legal dispute. So as Barry keeps saying, what is the
point of the draft? What good is it attempting to achieve?

The only point I can see in a BCP for blacklists is if it is going
to reduce the problems being caused by blacklists. The consensus here
seems to be that blacklists never create any problems. If so there
seems to be no need for a BCP.

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Matt Sergeant <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 21:14:45 +0100 (BST)

On Wed, 5 May 2004, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:

> seems to be that blacklists never create any problems.

I fail to see how you reached that conclusion. The BCP came about *purely*
because the authors saw problems in certain practices of certain DNSBLs.

Matt.