Paul, On Nov 10, 2023, at 11:06 PM, Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Nov 10, 2023, at 11:55 AM, John Levine <[email protected]> wrote: >>> DNSBLs have been around a lot longer than QNAME minimization. >> Not sure that’s relevant — I presume you’re not suggesting DNSBLs are a >> predominant use of the DNS. > DNSBLs are one of the biggest use cases for the DNS outside of "find me the > host". They are one of the primary reasons your inbox is not drowning worse > in spam.
It’s odd that you feel a need to explain DNSBLs or their uses. I’d be surprised if anyone on this list is unaware of them. Deployment of QNAME minimization had known impact on certain use cases that have been around even longer than DNSBLs but the desire for privacy overrode those concerns. As such, I’m unsure why the age of DNSBLs as a technology is relevant. >>> They work(ed) fine without minimization and I don't think it is reasonable >>> to expect every mail system in the world to change their configuration >>> to work around our performance bug. >> I thought the point of QNAME minimization was to improve privacy. > It is. Nothing in the John's proposal would reduce that, would it? John characterized QNAME minimization as a way to “work around our performance bug”, which as you know was not the prime driver for the work. I said nothing about his proposal. Regards, -drc
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
