Subject: [Asrg] Do we agree that draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-08 is done?

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 17 Apr 2011 17:41:50 -0000

It's been a while since we've seen any traffic about the BCP-ish
draft.

Barring strenuous objection, I'll say that we have RG consensus
to publish it.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 21:54:55 -0400

> Barring strenuous objection, I'll say that we have RG consensus

No strenuous objection.

   Consequent removals (if the conditions for removal is met) should be

"is" should be "are".

   This has often results in great consternation

"results" should be "resulted".

   Some mail systems are unable to differentiate between these various
   results or flags, however, so a public DNSBL SHOULD NOT include
   opposing or widely different meanings -- such as 127.0.0.23 for
   "sends good mail" and 127.0.0.99 for "sends bad mail" -- within the
   same DNS zone.

I'm doing exactly what this says I SHOULD NOT - listing "sends good mail"
and "sends bad mail" values in the same zone.  Because I have no interest
in usability directly by software incapable of differentiating (like
postfix's reject_rbl_client, which I have personally found very useful).
And I think that's fine.  I also think its web page makes it clear enough
that such use would not work.

I might add to the existing text ", unless there is no interest in
compatibility with systems incapable of such differentiation".  Or you
could just leave it, it won't hurt anybody.

I'm talking about the IP reputation thing I mentioned here not long ago -
it works about as expected, great for people providing data, still not
enough data to work great for people not providing data -
http://www.chaosreigns.com/iprep/
So I'd love to get data from more people.

I apologize for not reading this sooner.  It is pretty painfully boring,
even for people actively interested in the subject.

-- 
"But do you have any idea how many SuperBalls you could buy if you
actually applied yourself in the world? Probably eleven, but you should
still try." - http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/
http://www.ChaosReigns.com

---

From: TRBL Support <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 21:15:03 -0500

> Barring strenuous objection, I'll say that we have RG consensus

No objection here.

Rs,
Tom @ TRBL
-- 
Tom @ TRBLSPAM DNSBL: http://www.trblspam.com
simple, spamtrap driven, easy on, easy off

---

From: Steve Linford <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:37:31 +0100

> Barring strenuous objection, I'll say that we have RG consensus

Spamhaus has no objections, we think the authors have done a fine job and we will respect every item of the document.

However, if anything turns out later to be not to my liking I reserve the right to have a hissy-fit, throw all my toys out of the pram, renounce my citizenship of the Intertube and slam the door behind me ;)

Regards,

  Steve Linford
  The Spamhaus Project
  http://www.spamhaus.org

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 18 Apr 2011 14:57:46 -0000

>However, if anything turns out later to be not to my liking I reserve
>the right to have a hissy-fit, throw all my toys out of the pram,
>renounce my citizenship of the Intertube and slam the door behind me

Can I watch?

R's,
John