On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 22:10:20 -0500
Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
> +1
> I agree this is ugly as ugly can be but that ship has sailed.
> For interoperability sake lets just publish this with a note that
> says something like this;
>
> This is documentation of fielded useful protocol.
> This is ugly
On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 07:49:59 -0500
Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2016, at 1:45 AM, ac wrote:
> The point is that while you may believe that domains names are
> property, and that a DNS server administrator who doesn’t honor that
> property right is stealing, nobody here agrees with
On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 01:23:10 -0500
"Allan Liska" wrote:
> On 12/20/2016 at 12:31 AM, "ac" wrote:
> > If you wish to consider a physical analog, there may be a general
> > principle that one should not interfere with postal mail, but this
> is challeged by
On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 06:12:42 +
Evan Hunt wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 07:30:43AM +0200, ac wrote:
> > You are quite correct, but the minute you answer questions for other
> > people the entire situation changes.
> Not if they've contracted with me to answer t
On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 04:56:06 +
Evan Hunt wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 06:42:02AM +0200, ac wrote:
> > the reason why there is an ethical difference between Domain Names
> > and IP resources starts with the fact that domain names are other
> > people's actual int
consideration why some DNS admins do not see
what they do as so much different than that which other admins do,
Maybe this needs to be said in more detail, instead of what I am
saying just looking like a belief or a point of view.
> On Dec 19, 2016, at 2:28 AM, ac wrote:
> > In you
I cannot reply to you, off list, as your email is broken. So, for the list, my
reply:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 11:34:16 +
Jim Reid wrote:
> > On 19 Dec 2016, at 09:50, ac wrote:
> > you are answering for something that has implied trust and that you
> > do not necessari
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 10:59:57 +
Tony Finch wrote:
> ac wrote:
> > To legitimize the telling of lies and to define protocols that hides
> > the truth from users, (deception) for whatever reason, is wrong.
> I agree.
> That is why, if you are deploying RPZ, you shoul
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 10:59:31 +0100
bert hubert wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:50:02AM +0200, ac wrote:
> Maybe the internet was a mistake then. But I don't think we'll
> convince you.
> Huge segments of the internet do think this is a good idea. And like
> other
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 10:38:46 +0100
bert hubert wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:24:33AM +0200, ac wrote:
> > when there is an RFC that describers how to lie and then adds
> > deception, this is no longer something to negotiate or to discuss
> > much.
>
> By
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 10:11:11 +0100 (CET)
sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
> > The law does not say : send "Pirate Bay" to "example.com" to deceive
> > your users! it may instruct you to send coca-cola.org to
> > coca-cola.com
>
> The law instructs me to tell customers the lie that various Pirate Bay
> do
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 09:16:28 +0100 (CET)
sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
> > > So if this is the IP of a phishing site or the IP of an command
> > > and control host that tells its bot to execute criminal action
> > > you still valid the accuracy of the answer higher then possible
> > > damage this could
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 09:16:28 +0100 (CET)
sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
> > > So if this is the IP of a phishing site or the IP of an command
> > > and control host that tells its bot to execute criminal action
> > > you still valid the accuracy of the answer higher then possible
> > > damage this could
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 07:53:42 +0100
"Ralf Weber" wrote:
> Moin!
>
Aloha
> > DNS admins also have a fiduciary responsibility to their users.
> > Other services also have implied fiduciary responsibility, like
> > email, but DNS is a direct service - Your user is asking you, right
> > now, for a
On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 23:45:34 +
"Adrien de Croy" wrote:
> > If the admin's goal is to block access to malicious sites, then
> > they want to block the traffic, not falsify DNS. If the goal is
> > to warn users away from bad places, they can publish the list as a
> > filter for end-system f
On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 10:45:57 -0800
william manning wrote:
this became very relevant to DNSOP list again...
> SMTP configuration is not relevant... That said, the morphing of open
> SMTP services to the tightly controlled heirarchy and draconian
> locally administered rules which prevent delivery
On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 07:59:30 GMT
Vernon Schryver wrote:
> > From: ac
> > To: dnsop@ietf.org
> > If any of you are thinking about speaking your mind, there are
> > consequences.
> What consequences are those, besides subjecting me to two instead of
> only one copy
If any of you are thinking about speaking your mind, there are consequences.
v...@rhyolite.com
host smtp.rhyolite.com [192.188.61.3]
SMTP error from remote mail server after end of data:
550 5.7.1 mail uBI4vMnA039102 from 188.40.114.80 rejected by DCC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_Che
On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 18:27:51 GMT
Vernon Schryver wrote:
> > From: ac
> > that is only your point of view, take of your sunglasses, it is
> > bright outside, we are Making The Internet Great Again, writing
> > protocols to tell lies, moving lines, exploring the dark side
to
tell lies, moving lines, exploring the dark side of the force, a new
time is upon us, where toasters also make ice and ice and tell time.
you are right about the speed though, must be the wind in your hair?
> On Dec 17, 2016 00:38, "ac" wrote:
> > and so we all go down th
and so we all go down the slippery slope.
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 13:53:52 -0800
internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories. This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System
> Operations of the IETF.
>
> Title
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:37:34 +0100
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 01:25:57PM +0100,
> Francisco J. Gómez Rodríguez wrote
> a message of 102 lines which said:
> > Dear Sirs,
> Our working group chair won't be happy :-)
> > I recommend you to try port filter with value 53 (
22 matches
Mail list logo
