[anti-abuse-wg] Fwd: Re: RBL policy

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:25:01 +0000
HRH Prince Sven Olaf von CyberBunker <svenk at xs4all.nl> wrote:
> although i can't see how you managed to obtain statistics on the
> number of emails being sent each day... unless spamhaus would like to
> admit that they also spy on dns requests to their dnsbl... which
<snip> 
Okay, we can just agree to disagree - or simply just disagree is also good. lol

May I please solicit some comments about Abuse Block lists
(Without detracting from RFC 5782 and RFC 6471 or :
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-409 )

Considering that DNSBL tech is "MOSTLY" "reactive" (after he abuse)
- although - there are - some - DNSBL (apparently Spamhaus? etc etc)
that apparently block before anything happens (thank you for pointing
this out Simon)

The block time policies of RBLs - Not specifically anyone blocklist in
particular - just the general policies)

***********************************
Among the reactive and pre emptive DNSBL, there are two main types of
block lists: No automatic removal and automatic removal

Is the policy to auto de-list after a period of time, still accurate? 
or should block lists not auto de list at all any longer?

If still auto de-list - Considering the change in abuse patterns and technology, should the
block times be increased or de-creased?

Then; Ignoring pre-emptive - predictive (in advance for no reason) blocking: 
Does society require more specialist non auto de-list DNSBLs?
(Would it be helpful to civil society, law enforcement etc to have a
"child pornography" dnsbl? or a phish dnsbl? - or is the reactive time
to high in order for dynamic ipv4? - but on ipv6 allocations to devices
could be more 'permanent'? etc)

Andre