On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 06:47:30PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
> >
> > Trailing dots in email addresses are a syntax error.
>
> In fact, Mutt (1.2.5) permits the trailing dot, and delivers the mail,
> and all the intervening MTAs (I only tested local mail
Phil Regnauld (regnauld) writes:
> John Levine (johnl) writes:
> > d) 280
>
> # dig @f.root-servers.net axfr . | egrep 'IN[[:space:]]NS' | awk '{ print $1
> }' | sort -u |wc -l
>
> 281
Interesting extract from a transcript of tICANN board meeting in Paris.
It doesn't say much about what wa
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 06:36:06PM +0100,
> Tony Finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> a message of 15 lines which said:
>
> > It makes the "public suffix list" project harder, but so long as the
> > list of TLDs changes reasonably slowly, it shouldn't
[ back on list ]
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 05:34:53PM -0400, Jerry B. Altzman wrote:
> There was a HUGE one about that domain name between Nissan Motors and
> some computer consultant named Nissan (a Hebrew name) in NC.
> vis http://www.nissan.com/Lawsuit/The_Story.php
> I don't know exactly how to
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 06:36:06PM +0100,
Tony Finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 15 lines which said:
> It makes the "public suffix list" project harder, but so long as the
> list of TLDs changes reasonably slowly, it shouldn't become
> impossible. http://publicsuffix.org/
Well, th
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jay R. Ashworth
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Could someone, anyone, anywhere, point me to *any case law in any
jurisdiction whatsoever* which tends even to *suggest* that the mere
purchase and deployment of a domain name *in itself* in any way
constitutes infringemen
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:02:33 -0400
Jean-François Mezei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> To get a button to easily enable and disable javascript:
>
> http://prefbar.mozdev.org/
>
While I do use prefbar, for dealing with Javascript I much prefer
NoScript, since that gives me per-site control.
Scott Weeks wrote:
> How'd you do that? I use FF on FreeBSD, but parhaps there're similar
> settings.
Since a few people asked.
in the url line: about:config
This is the magic incantation that gets you a page with just about all
configuration settings.
you can serach for a particular settin
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 8:34 PM, Jean-François Mezei
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With all the phishing shananigans, you'd think the folks outside of
> microsoft who would strive to avoid features that could bring you to
> unwanted destinations and they should just stick to feeding your host
> nam
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> It also deals properly, on the same machine, with several internal
> webservers, which I also hit with one-word names, but which actually
> resolve, of course, by the search list on the machine.
>
> So FF3, at least, will try to resolve oneword as oneword., before
> moving
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 05:04:19PM -0400, Jean-Fran?ois Mezei wrote:
> Bill Nash wrote:
> > Off the top of my head, I can see some high dollar fist fights breaking
> > out for .sex, .porn, .games, .hotel, etc. It'll be like the .alt tree on
> > usenet for people with money. There may also be an a
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 12:49:35PM -0500, Frank Bulk - iNAME wrote:
> One way to provide protection is too allow those who have the domain portion
> of any domain.(com|net|org|...) to have first dibs for the domain of any new
> gTLD. i.e. if nanog.org, nanog.com, nanog.net, etc. would have first d
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Jay R. Ashworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> RFC 2822 3.4 punts the components of dot-atom to STD 3/13/14.
>
> STD 13 is RFC 1035, which, in 2.3.1, suggests (but does not impose) a
> standard for domain name literals which appears to expand to a pattern
> which d
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 06:47:30PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Matthew Petach wrote:
> > Or should I always ensure that resolvers reach my domain explicitly by
> > including the trailing "dot" in all uses, so that my email would be
> > given out as "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" in the hop
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 01:02:29PM -0500, Frank Bulk wrote:
> It would be helpful if someone could put together of web page of different
> links so that people could test the native resolvers for each OS and
> applications (web browsers primarily, but also DNS clients separated from
> the OS stack
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 09:05:41AM -0700, Matthew Petach wrote:
> > In the usual way. Try typing this into your browser's address bar:
> >
> > http://museum/
>
> That was amusing. Firefox very handily took me to a search
> results page listing results for the word "museum", none of
> which was
Tony Finch wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
I am very curious of what tests a "security-aware programmer" can do,
based on the domain name, which will not be possible tomorrow, should
ICANN allow a few more TLDs.
It makes the "public suffix list" project harder, b
be illuminated sooner rather than later.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Simon Waters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 12:21 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs
On Monday 30 June 2008 17:24:45 John Levine wrote:
> &
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Matthew Petach wrote:
>
> Or should I always ensure that resolvers reach my domain explicitly by
> including the trailing "dot" in all uses, so that my email would be
> given out as "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" in the hopes that everyone would correctly
> remember to add the "." at the
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> I am very curious of what tests a "security-aware programmer" can do,
> based on the domain name, which will not be possible tomorrow, should
> ICANN allow a few more TLDs.
It makes the "public suffix list" project harder, but so long as the list
On Jun 30, 2008, at 12:54 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:55:53 EDT, "Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET" said:
220 Sending HELO/EHLO constitutes acceptance of this agreement
Even in a UCITA state that has onerous rules regarding shrink-
wrapped EULA
terms, I think you'd have a very ha
On Monday 30 June 2008 17:24:45 John Levine wrote:
> >> In the usual way. Try typing this into your browser's address bar:
> >>
> >> http://museum/
> >
> > That was amusing. Firefox very handily took me to a search
> > results page listing results for the word "museum", none of
> > which was th
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:55:53 EDT, "Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET" said:
> 220 Sending HELO/EHLO constitutes acceptance of this agreement
Even in a UCITA state that has onerous rules regarding shrink-wrapped EULA
terms, I think you'd have a very hard time getting a court to enforce an
alleged contract based
In the usual way. Try typing this into your browser's address bar:
http://museum/
That was amusing. Firefox very handily took me to a search
results page listing results for the word "museum", none of
which was the actual page in question.
Gee, it works fine for me in Firefox 2.0.0.14. I
Matthew Petach (mpetach) writes:
>
> That was amusing. Firefox very handily took me to a search
> results page listing results for the word "museum", none of
> which was the actual page in question.
... and Safari took me to www.museum.com.
> Thanks for all the pointers! I guess I won'
On 30 Jun 2008 14:47:23 -, John Levine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> >Terribly stupid question, but one aproppos to this thread.
> >
> >If my company pays for and registers a new TLD, let's
> >call it "smtp" for grins, and I create an A record for
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>Terribly stupid question, but one aproppos to this thread.
>
>If my company pays for and registers a new TLD, let's
>call it "smtp" for grins, and I create an A record for "smtp."
>in my top level zone file, how will users outside my company
>resolve and r
David Conrad (drc) writes:
>
> 1) The new gTLD stuff hasn't gotten as far as the point where the testing
> of IDN stuff started.
Mhh, ok :)
> 2) ICANN (or rather, the technical side of ICANN staff) has thought about
> this and there is a 'technical evaluation' phase of the application
On Jun 30, 2008, at 1:53 AM, Phil Regnauld wrote:
But considering the amount of flag waving and "Caution: Wet
Floor" signs ICANN placed when it rolled out something has
harmless as the IDN tests in the root, I'm surprised that they
haven't thought about all the non
It seems to me that there are technical reasons to try and
block .local, and maybe some other potential TLDs,
but that for .exe, .smtp, and other choices that confuse current
browser implementations, a warning note is
about all the registrant can expect.
Of course, it would not surprise me if
On Jun 30, 2008, at 12:36 AM, Matthew Petach wrote:
If my company pays for and registers a new TLD, let's
call it "smtp" for grins, and I create an A record for "smtp."
in my top level zone file, how will users outside my company
resolve and reach that address?
I suspect the assumption is that
John Levine (johnl) writes:
> d) 280
# dig @f.root-servers.net axfr . | egrep 'IN[[:space:]]NS' | awk '{ print $1 }'
| sort -u |wc -l
281
(with . itself)
Matthew Petach (mpetach) writes:
> If they simply use "smtp" as the hostname, most of the
> current resolver libraries will append the local domain
> name, so that instead of reaching my A record for smtp,
> they'll end up trying to reach smtp.their.domain.
Actually, that's a good point --
Terribly stupid question, but one aproppos to this thread.
If my company pays for and registers a new TLD, let's
call it "smtp" for grins, and I create an A record for "smtp."
in my top level zone file, how will users outside my company
resolve and reach that address?
If they simply use "smtp" as
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 02:45:55PM -0700,
Roger Marquis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 31 lines which said:
> The difference between '[a-z0-9\-\.]*\.[a-z]{2-5}'
If this is a regexp for the current root zone, it is
wrong... (".museum" and the test IDNs, whose punycode encoding
contains
David Conrad wrote:
... part of that constituency', but in reality, the majority of domain
names are held by registrars. ...
I didn't know that. Can you point me to some data?
Eric
* Jeroen Massar:
> Some people are going to get very rich over this. I hope that they
> drown in the money just as the Internet will drown in all the crap
> TLD's, not even thinking of all the nice security issues which come
> along (home, mycomputer and .exe etc anyone ? :)
.exe abd .com are equ
>> If you test that the TLD exists... it will still work.
> Only if A) you are always online with B) reliable access to the
> tld's nameserver/s, and C) can deal with the latency. In practice
> this is often not the case.
Even under the most wildly optimistic scenarios, it's hard to imagine
new
>
> You do have a choice if you're not concerned about the deliverability of
> your e-mail. Remember, the Internet remains a group of service
> providers/organizations/subscribers that voluntarily work together and can
> choose what goes in or out. And so if they decide not to receive traffic
>
Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am very curious of what tests a "security-aware programmer" can do,
based on the domain name, which will not be possible tomorrow, should
ICANN allow a few more TLDs.
The difference between '[a-z0-9\-\.]*\.[a-z]{2-5}' and
'[a-z0-9\-\.]*\.[a-z\-]*'
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008, John Levine wrote:
We already see this in the email world, where a self-appointed cartel
like the MAAWG can decide technical rules and policies, bypassing
both IETF and ICANN.
As an active participant in both the IETF and MAAWG, and a former
member of the ICANN ALAC, I can
PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 11:32 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs
We already see this in the email world, where a self-appointed cartel
like the MAAWG can decide technical rules and policies, bypassing both
IETF and ICANN. Even if o
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
This requires serious elaboration. How could you use a domain in
".exe" to actually attack someone? (No handwaving, please, actual
study.)
I think it would be the other way around - I would assume that that
was a near worthless TLD, as it
would co
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:24:48AM -0700,
Scott Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 32 lines which said:
> what problem is ICANN trying to solve with this
> proposal? What about the current system that's broken, does this new
> system fix?
ICANN is simply responding to demand. Some
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 01:32:05PM -0700,
Roger Marquis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 22 lines which said:
> Security-aware programmers will now be unable to apply even cursory
> tests for domain name validity.
I am very curious of what tests a "security-aware programmer" can do,
base
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> We already see this in the email world, where a self-appointed cartel
> like the MAAWG can decide technical rules and policies, bypassing both
> IETF and ICANN. Even if only one half of the big operators enforce
> these rules, they will become de
>We already see this in the email world, where a self-appointed cartel
>like the MAAWG can decide technical rules and policies, bypassing
>both IETF and ICANN.
As an active participant in both the IETF and MAAWG, and a former
member of the ICANN ALAC, I can assure you that MAAWG would be
delighted
> > This requires serious elaboration. How could you use a domain in
> > ".exe" to actually attack someone? (No handwaving, please, actual
> > study.)
> >
>
> I think it would be the other way around - I would assume that that
> was a near worthless TLD, as it
> would come with a built in DOS :
On Jun 29, 2008, at 5:45 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:53:06PM +0200,
Jeroen Massar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 49 lines which said:
not even thinking of all the nice security issues which come along
(home, mycomputer and .exe etc anyone ?
This require
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:37:34PM -0500,
Frank Bulk - iNAME <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 37 lines which said:
> ...which is why it might be a strategy to blacklist all new TLDs (if
> this proposal gets through) and whitelist just .com, .net, etc.
Interesting. I do not know if this s
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:53:06PM +0200,
Jeroen Massar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 49 lines which said:
> not even thinking of all the nice security issues which come along
> (home, mycomputer and .exe etc anyone ?
This requires serious elaboration. How could you use a domain in
".
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 01:12:39PM -0700, Matthew Petach wrote:
> Those two statements of yours directly contraindicate each other.
No, they don't. Outbound relays (which are presumably used by client
systems presenting appropriate authentication) know the identity of
user presenting credentials.
In article
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Frank Bulk -
iNAME <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
One way to provide protection is too allow those who have the domain portion
of any domain.(com|net|org|...) to have first dibs for the domain of any new
gTLD. i.e. if nanog.org, nanog.com, nanog.net, etc. would have f
On 6/28/08, Rich Kulawiec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 06:18:44PM +0200, Phil Regnauld wrote:
> > Rich Kulawiec (rsk) writes:
...
> And given that any estimate of hijacked systems under 100 million is
> laughably out-of-date, it's a best practice to blacklist ALL such IP
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 06:18:44PM +0200, Phil Regnauld wrote:
> Rich Kulawiec (rsk) writes:
> >
> > I don't see a problem with not accepting mail from clueless ISPs or their
> > customers. The requirement for rDNS has been around for decades.
> > Anyone who's not aware of it has no business runn
with division?
Frank
-Original Message-
From: David Conrad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 7:50 AM
To: WWWhatsup
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: what problem are we solving? (was Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's
Box of new TLDs)
On Jun 27, 2008, at 8:59 PM, WWWh
Phil Regnauld wrote:
Requirement ? What requirement ? There's no requirement for
reverse DNS for email in any RFC.
As a practical matter, I've found that sending out email from a
host without rDNS doesn't work: too many sites bounce the mail.
It will not come as news to anyo
ob spam... Spam is viral marketing for CHoRD?
DNS can deal w/ billions of entries... order magnitude IPv4 space,
with relative ease (note well the use of the term "relative")
not at all convinced that unmodified DNS can deal w/ spaces on the
order of magnitude of IPv6 space...
*and yes, there
Rich Kulawiec (rsk) writes:
>
> I don't see a problem with not accepting mail from clueless ISPs or their
> customers. The requirement for rDNS has been around for decades.
> Anyone who's not aware of it has no business running a mail server.
Requirement ? What requirement ? There's no
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 01:56:53PM +0200, Phil Regnauld wrote:
> Rich Kulawiec (rsk) writes:
> >
> > Best practice is refuse all mail that comes from any host lacking rDNS,
> > since that host doesn't meet the minimum requirements for a mail server.
>
> No, that's utterly stupid. You're ex
On Jun 28, 2008, at 6:48 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 01:40:03PM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
On Jun 27, 2008, at 5:22 AM, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
Well, at least the new TLDs will promote DNS-based cruft filtration.
You can
already safely ignore anything with a .name, .b
On Jun 28, 2008, at 4:19 AM, Raoul Bhatia [IPAX] wrote:
Tony Finch wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Jeroen Massar wrote:
thinking of all the nice security issues which come along (home,
mycomputer
and .exe etc anyone ? :)
.exe has the same security properties as .com
not exactly, as a lot of u
On Jun 27, 2008, at 8:59 PM, WWWhatsup wrote:
David Conrad wrote:
With that said, personally, I agree that more attention should be
spent on the welfare of the registrants. Unfortunately, given I work
for ICANN, my providing comments in the RAA public consultation along
those lines would be a b
On Jun 27, 2008, at 6:11 PM, Jean-François Mezei wrote:
But my uneducated opinion is that this current project appears to let
the .TLD loose and this will result in top level domains being
meaningless, without any trust.
Given the complexity of the new gTLD process, I think it safe to say
tha
Roger Marquis (marquis) writes:
> I have to conclude that ICANN has failed, simply failed, and should be
> returned to the US government. Perhaps the DHL would at least solicit for
> RFCs from the security community.
DHS ? Otherwise, yes, you could ship ICANN back to the US gvt. with
DH
Rich Kulawiec (rsk) writes:
>
> Best practice is refuse all mail that comes from any host lacking rDNS,
> since that host doesn't meet the minimum requirements for a mail server.
No, that's utterly stupid. You're excluding countries which have
poor infrastructure or clueless ISPs
Jim Shankland (nanog) writes:
>
> Because it's Friday, I checked the last few weeks or so of logs from
> my personal mail server (located in the US), and broke the list of
> unique IP addresses rejected by zen.spamhaus.org up by registry:
... spam coming from US computers vs. spam coming f
Owen DeLong (owen) writes:
>>
> Whether some choose to do that or not, I believe that the point is that:
>
> 1.Nobody is FORCING them to do so.
Trademark law is forcing you to - you have to make reasonable attempts
to actively defend your trademark. Of course, no-one forces yo
Tony Finch wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>> thinking of all the nice security issues which come along (home, mycomputer
>> and .exe etc anyone ? :)
>
> .exe has the same security properties as .com
not exactly, as a lot of users know that there is something like a
.com domain
Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> this is analogous to the gossip that most spam comes from china, asia,
> nigeria, or whomever we like to be xenophobic or racist about this week.
> measurement shows the united states to be the largest single source of spam.
The US is also the largest sin
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:24:48AM -0700, Scott Francis wrote:
> more to the point ... what problem is ICANN trying to solve with this
> proposal?
Oh, that's quite straightforward: insufficient registrar revenue.
---Rsk
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 08:41:28AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
> this is analogous to the gossip that most spam comes from china, asia,
> nigeria, or whomever we like to be xenophobic or racist about this week.
> measurement shows the united states to be the largest single source of spam.
Globally, y
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 01:40:03PM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
>
> On Jun 27, 2008, at 5:22 AM, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
>> Well, at least the new TLDs will promote DNS-based cruft filtration.
>> You can
>> already safely ignore anything with a .name, .biz, .info, .tv suffix,
>> to
>> name just
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 8:33 PM
To: Tomas L. Byrnes
Cc: Christopher Morrow; Roger Marquis; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
These issues are not separate and distinct, but rather rel
topher Morrow; Roger Marquis; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
These issues are not separate and distinct, but rather related.
A graduated level of analysis of membership in any of the sets of:
1: Recently
ginal Message-
> From: Gadi Evron [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 8:33 PM
> To: Tomas L. Byrnes
> Cc: Christopher Morrow; Roger Marquis; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs
>
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Tomas L. Byrnes w
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 12:34 AM, Gadi Evron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Interesting, I was under the impression anything less than 120 is
effectively as good as 120.
I have not measured... I bet yahoo has though :) and/or Akamai.
There's a reason
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 12:34 AM, Gadi Evron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:11 PM, Roger Marquis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Christopher Morrow wrote:
I'd point out that FastFlux is a
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:11 PM, Roger Marquis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Christopher Morrow wrote:
I'd point out that FastFlux is actually sort of how Akamai does
it's job (inconsistent dns responses)
That's not really fas
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:11 PM, Roger Marquis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>>
>> I'd point out that FastFlux is actually sort of how Akamai does
>> it's job (inconsistent dns responses)
>
> That's not really fast flux. FF uses TTLs of just a few sec
(picking up where I ejected on the email...argh)
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 12:19 AM, Christopher Morrow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:13 PM, Tomas L. Byrnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> These issues are not separate and distinct, but rather related.
>>
>> A graduated level
y, you can accept
> traffic from everywhere.
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: Christopher Morrow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 7:23 PM
>> To: Roger Marquis
>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>> Subject: Re: ICANN opens up P
David Conrad wrote:
>With that said, personally, I agree that more attention should be
>spent on the welfare of the registrants. Unfortunately, given I work
>for ICANN, my providing comments in the RAA public consultation along
>those lines would be a bit ... awkward.
Would you agree with
erfect for plausible deniability.
Gadi.
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Morrow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 7:23 PM
To: Roger Marquis
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 4:32 PM
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Roger Marquis wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Christopher Morrow wrote:
1) Fast flux 2) Botnets 3) Domain tasting 4) valid contact info
These are separate and distinct issues...
They are separate but also linked by being issues that only be addressed at
the registrar level, th
oger Marquis
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs
>
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 4:32 PM, Roger Marquis
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Phil Regnauld wrote:
> > apply even cursory tests for domain name validity. Ph
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Christopher Morrow wrote:
1) Fast flux 2) Botnets 3) Domain tasting 4) valid contact info
These are separate and distinct issues...
They are separate but also linked by being issues that only be addressed at
the registrar level, through TOS. Since some registrars have a fi
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 4:32 PM, Roger Marquis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Phil Regnauld wrote:
> apply even cursory tests for domain name validity. Phishers and spammers
> will have a field day with the inevitable namespace collisions. It is,
> however, unfortunately consistent with ICANN's inabi
While doing the groceries, I got to think about this issue.
There have been complaints in the past about difficulty in getting new
legitimate TLDs approved by ICANN. (image of ICANN being too USA centric
etc etc etc).
So I understand a move towards a more documented and "logical" process
to get n
Randy Bush wrote:
this is analogous to the gossip that most spam comes from china, asia,
nigeria, or whomever we like to be xenophobic or racist about this week.
measurement shows the united states to be the largest single source of spam.
Because it's Friday, I checked the last few weeks or so
>> already safely ignore anything with a .name, .biz, .info, .tv suffix, to
>> name just the worst.
> Does this actually work? The vast majority of spam I receive has an
> origin that doesn't reverse map. Of those messages that have origins
> (as extracted from the appropriate Received header) th
On Jun 27, 2008, at 3:30 PM, Bill Nash wrote:
On Jun 27, 2008, at 10:57 AM, Bill Nash wrote:
Out of curiosity, what are the problems you feel ICANN should be
spending its time on?
For starters, has Verisign ever been sanctioned by ICANN for it's
business practices,
You mean like Sitefinder
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Bill Nash wrote:
Except for domain registrars, who are only really a registrar when they make
a mistake that could cost your entire commercial enterprise.
Edit: s/when/until/
Beer:30.
- billn
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, David Conrad wrote:
On Jun 27, 2008, at 10:57 AM, Bill Nash wrote:
I'd rather see ICANN spend time on current problems instead of making new
ones.
Out of curiosity, what are the problems you feel ICANN should be spending its
time on?
For starters, has Verisign ever b
On Jun 27, 2008, at 1:32 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:
Phil Regnauld wrote:
As business models go, it's a fine example of how to build demand
without really servicing the community.
Of all the ways new tlds could have been implemented this has to be
the
most poorly thought out.
Oh, no. There
On Jun 27, 2008, at 2:02 PM, Scott Francis wrote:
what little assurance we have that e.g. bankofamerica.com is the
legitimate (or should I say, _a_ legitimate) site for the financial
institution of the same name becomes less certain when we have e.g.
bank.of.america, www.bankofamerica.bank, www.b
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:04:19 EDT, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jean-Fran=E7ois_Mezei?= said:
> Say I am a pastry chef, and I pay $40 per year for "pastry.com", I got
> it because I signed up early and now cherish my domain name. I am a
> small business.
>
> But now, some rich guy can come in and bid for .pastr
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bill
Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
I agree with Scott, I'd rather see ICANN spend time on current problems
instead of making new ones.
Did you express that opinion to the Paris meeting?
[Not an attack on you specifically, but as this process has been ongoing
Bill Nash wrote:
> Off the top of my head, I can see some high dollar fist fights breaking
> out for .sex, .porn, .games, .hotel, etc. It'll be like the .alt tree on
> usenet for people with money. There may also be an actual fist fight over
> TLDs like .irc, .leet, .goatse, and .krad. Maybe no
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 1:49 PM, David Conrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Scott Francis wrote:
>>
>> If we can't even guarantee
>> reliability with the small handful of TLDs currently in use, when we
>> start introducing arbitrary new ones to anybody that can pay, I'm
1 - 100 of 188 matches
Mail list logo
