Re: [Asrg] Re: New draft of the DNSBL definition document

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


John R Levine writes:
> > > > Is it?  I haven't looked at enough name-based DNSBLs to know.
> > >
> > > FWIW, it seems like a bad choice, since it has other meanings.  Can anyone
> > > explain why this was used,
> 
> It's a perfectly reasonable choice, since example.com is a reserved name
> held by IANA.

OK, but reserved for other purposes -- such as in examples.  

Imagine if it was used as a test point in a URIBL; that overloaded meaning
would mean that some legit discussion, e.g.

    I prefer using this type of link format: <a
    href="http://www.example.com/">text</a>

sent via mail, would therefore wind up blocked.

> I was mostly wondering whether to say this is the
> convention, or there's no convention but this would be a reasonable one.

FWIW, I suggested that SURBL use
"surbl-org-permanent-test-pointMUNGED.com" (sans the "MUNGED"). In other
words, an *extremely* unlikely string, which explicitly refers to the BL
by name.   Jeff did, indeed, use that.

Name-based BLs don't have the relatively-tiny namespace problem that IP
BLs do, so in my opinion there's no need to overload meanings; entirely
unlikely test strings are just fine.

- --j.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS

iD8DBQFDYrgeMJF5cimLx9ARAkwSAKC5/Ny3SYS4iSJlt9L3JlIU9fxXYQCfVnaW
N0trJeHP8t6t6+Boc+c2G6Q=
=jJSz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----