Re: [Asrg] Round 2 of the DNSBL BCP - "collateral damage"

[SM <sm at resistor.net>]

At 19:20 03-04-2008, Chris Lewis wrote:
>I feel so ... dumb ;-)  127.0.0.2 will have similar problems.  The thing
>to choose would preferably be something that's not resolveable, and is
>unlikely to ever be used in a real link.  SURBL has something like
>"this-is-not-likely-to-ever-appear.<queryroot>".  Perhaps the BCP should
>   simply give suggestions on how to invent a test string rather than
>mandating a specific one.  Or punt.

We are looking at two different cases here, the DNSBL which lists the 
connecting IP address/network, etc. and the URBL which lists URIs 
used in the message body.  Instead of having a one-rule-suits-all, 
you can have test.bl.example.com, where bl.example.com is the 
hostname part, for URBLs.

BTW, 127.0.0.2 is only a problem if the application performing the 
query doesn't whitelist IP addresses (RFC 1918, etc.).  I see that 
more as an implementation problem.

If the BCP suggests how to invent a test string, we end up with 
different strings.  It's easier to code for one or two cases.

Regards,
-sm 

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg