Erik Logtenberg:
>
> >> However in the case where the whitelist is (completely) unavailable for
> >> some period of time, I still think that my suggestion applies, don't you
> >> agree?
> >
> > No. It is assumed that you use a sufficiently reliable DNSWL. Ideally
> > a local mirror, and if it becomes unavailable you use appropriate
> > administrative intervention.
>
> Lol...
>
> My statement is:
> "A implies B"
>
> and you respond with: No, because:
> "not A"
>
> Logically, even if "not A" is the case, then still you haven't denied
> the given implication. In fact in the strictest sense you even affirmed
> it, because "not A" implies "A implies B", since false implies everything.
It is a mistake to REJECT mail because a DNS whitelist server is down.
Instead, the safe action is DEFER_IF_PERMIT.
Wietse
