On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 12:04:19PM +0200, ox wrote: >[...] > But, you neglected to add - That is is not socially acceptable to > define protocols for defrauding people, to tell lies, commit deception,
Who defines waht is socially acceptable? btw: most phishing pages use HTTP; HTTP is used for fraud and lies (probably more than RPZ will ever be...); but no one objects the use of HTTP as a protocol -- as the protocol by itself has no moral "value"; it's only the use of a protocol for fraud which is not acceptable. >[...] > Heck, if you are honest, and from the responses in this thread, it is > already "best practise" and quite acceptable to use/apply RPZ - as > apparently "many" are doing this and has been doing it for years. Yes; mangling of DNS responses has been done for years; RPZ only defines a standard for this procedure (which is better than having many non-standard ways). >[...] > That RPZ is DNS abuse, in itself, it is an abuse to Internet Society > and it serves to promote Crime. This is your point of view. Could you provide some evidence where RPZ promotes crime etc. (more than it helps preventing it)? Repeating "RPZ is Evil" again and again doesn't convice me, but as you said: we're in a post-truth world... Thomas
