David Conrad writes:
>
>
> But I would agree it is much easier to simply blame ICANN.
>
Yeah, I always blame ICANN for the bad weather :-).
jaap
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 10:17 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Jul 6, 2016, at 10:41 AM, Christopher Morrow
> wrote:
> > Perhaps this all self-polices?
>
> I figure either it does or governments get involved and that most likely
> ends in tears.
>
>
I can't wait for our gov't overloads to discover th
On Jul 6, 2016, at 10:41 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> Perhaps this all self-polices?
I figure either it does or governments get involved and that most likely ends
in tears.
> I hate it when you are right :)
Don't worry: very rarely happens.
Regards,
-drc
(speaking only for myself)
si
Rubens,
On Jul 6, 2016, at 2:20 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
>> Not sure the RPZ hammer has been brought out in force yet. I've seen a few
>> recommendations on various mailing lists, but no concerted effort.
>> Unfortunately, there is no easy/scalable way to determine who a registrar
>> for a given
>
> Not sure the RPZ hammer has been brought out in force yet. I've seen a few
> recommendations on various mailing lists, but no concerted effort.
> Unfortunately, there is no easy/scalable way to determine who a registrar
> for a given name is,
That is called RDAP, but ICANN currently blocks g
FYI
There is no way to reset the password on a PAN without doing a factory
reset if you do not know the password of any previous config release
version.
If you do a reset then you will have to reconfigure the fw rules, ip
addresses, routes, nat, inspection policy's, and other basic functions
depe
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 4:04 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> Depends on whether or not the Registry wants their TLD to be associated
>> with spam/malware distribution/botnet C&C/phishing/pharming and be removed
>> at resolvers via RPZ or similar. Ultimately, the Registries are responsible
>> for the poo
> Depends on whether or not the Registry wants their TLD to be associated with
> spam/malware distribution/botnet C&C/phishing/pharming and be removed at
> resolvers via RPZ or similar. Ultimately, the Registries are responsible for
> the pool the Registrars are peeing in -- it's the Registry's
On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 13:23:04 -0400, Christopher Morrow said:
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>
> > Seems to me that the proper thing to be done would have been for
> > Registries to deauthorize registrars on the grounds of continuous streams
> > of complaints.
> >
> >
>
> On
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 2:53 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Jul 6, 2016, at 7:23 AM, Christopher Morrow
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> >> Seems to me that the proper thing to be done would have been for
> >> Registries to deauthorize registrars on the grounds of
As a customer of OpenSRS they sent us a notice about the change. The
notice, and this page you linked, speak to their customer communication
about policy changes.
To be honest, I just breezed the email message and noted that it seemed
like a positive change (without knowing the reasons that pr
On Jul 6, 2016, at 7:23 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> Seems to me that the proper thing to be done would have been for
>> Registries to deauthorize registrars on the grounds of continuous streams
>> of complaints.
>>
>>
>
> On what metri
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> Seems to me that the proper thing to be done would have been for
> Registries to deauthorize registrars on the grounds of continuous streams
> of complaints.
>
>
On what metric? Pure volume? Percent of registrations? type of complaint by
simi
(I debated starting a new thread, only to have someone point me to previous
ones vs. replying to an old post. I thought the latter was less offensive.)
Did you find anything else near the price range that didn't have these
deficiencies?
As an eyeball network, would I have much to worry about r
14 matches
Mail list logo
