Subject: Re: [Asrg] New Version Notification for draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl-07

From: Franck Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:24:17 -0700 (PDT)

I'm not requesting for a root. 

I'm just highlighting the first post in the thread which is to make clear in the draft there is no root. 

Sorry also I'm catching up on the spec (yes I know I should read the archives). 

A few questions: 
-DNSBL usualy return an A record where the value ma indicate a status. Should this draft try to codify some answers? For instance a particular answer would mean DNSBL is shutdown 
-Should a listing in DNSBL generates an email to the listed to inform them of their new status. As stated in the document (3.4) many mail servers logs are not well watched, and it may take a while to recognise a listing has been added. 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Nicol" <[email-masked]> 
To: "Franck Martin" <[email-masked]>, "ASRG" <[email-masked]> 
Sent: Wednesday, 15 October, 2008 11:05:25 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific 
Subject: Re: [Asrg] New Version Notification for draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl-07 

to paraphrase Mr. Levine, establishing a organized hierarchy of DNS*Ls 
is not on anyone's radar. 

It's an interesting idea, but who or what would be the root? How 
would they be organized? Its easy to imagine the process starting by 
partnerships between complementary lists, and hard to imagine the 
massive infrastructure investment required to establish a semantic 
organization of dnslists by fiat. 

Imagining a standardization under, for instance, .lists.arpa is 
certainly easy to do, and would give a level of legitimacy to those 
lists able to achieve that brand. (presumably there would be service 
level and governance requirements) 

On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Franck Martin <[email-masked]> wrote: 
> Well, my meaning is that these are islands. There is no root. 

>> Or did you mean something else by "does not have any hierarchy?" 
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: "Chris Lewis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:44:01 -0400

> clear in the draft there is no root.

I don't think anybody would want there to be.  It doesn't need one.

> -DNSBL usualy return an A record where the value ma indicate a status.
> Should this draft try to codify some answers? For instance a particular
> answer would mean DNSBL is shutdown

If the DNSBL is shut down, how can you deliver an A record that says so?

You can't.

Both the RFC and the BCP talks about test entries.  See also the DNSBL
shutdown provisions in the BCP.

> -Should a listing in DNSBL generates an email to the listed to inform
> them of their new status. As stated in the document (3.4) many mail
> servers logs are not well watched, and it may take a while to recognise
> a listing has been added.

No.  With the churn of entries in some lists (daily churn of ~500K
entries in the CBL for example), doing such email is spam, impractical,
and given the dearth of public useful/appropriate IP->abuse desk address
mappings, generally impossible[*].  Not to mention that if it were
implemented, most receivers would ignore the notices from most lists.

There are a number of services that provide DNSBL monitoring for a fee.

It's not exactly hard to implement your own.

[*] WHOIS ain't it.  Even if it were remotely complete (which it isn't),
query rates from things like the CBL would blow the whois services out
of the water.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg