Re: Fw: [SAtalk] The Verisign folly

2003-09-17 Thread Steve Thomas
Right I'm glad to see we're in agreement... Where did you get the idea that I was suggesting that Verisign "owns" the Internet?!?! On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 12:04:06PM -0400, Burt Juda is rumored to have said: > > Verisign doesn't "own" the network ... they are in a FIDUCIARY role, > enTRUST

Re: Fw: [SAtalk] The Verisign folly

2003-09-17 Thread Burt Juda
Steve Thomas wrote: Right I'm glad to see we're in agreement... Yes, we are. Where did you get the idea that I was suggesting that Verisign "owns" the Internet?!?! Misunderstood pronoun ("they") in your Matt's last sentence/paragraph. On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 12:04:06PM -0400, Burt Juda is

Re: Fw: [SAtalk] The Verisign folly

2003-09-17 Thread Burt Juda
Verisign doesn't "own" the network ... they are in a FIDUCIARY role, enTRUSTed to carry out a role by that pulicly accepted standard. Their action simply *breaks* that public trust. - Burt Steve Thomas wrote: On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 08:31:55PM -0700, Matt Beland is rumored to have said:

Re: Fw: [SAtalk] The Verisign folly

2003-09-16 Thread Steve Thomas
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 10:31:23PM -0700, Matt Beland is rumored to have said: > > On the other hand, Paul Vixie has been participating in the discussion over on > NANOG and it sounds like ISC is aware of the potential pitfalls and they're > working to dodge them. They are actively developing th

Re: Fw: [SAtalk] The Verisign folly

2003-09-16 Thread Matt Beland
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 16 September 2003 10:16 pm, Steve Thomas wrote: > On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 08:31:55PM -0700, Matt Beland is rumored to have said: > > I stopped laughing, it occurred to me that hypocritical or no, that could > > mean trouble for ISC if VeriS

Re: Fw: [SAtalk] The Verisign folly

2003-09-16 Thread Steve Thomas
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 08:31:55PM -0700, Matt Beland is rumored to have said: > > I stopped laughing, it occurred to me that hypocritical or no, that could > mean trouble for ISC if VeriSign chose to push the issue. What kind of trouble? Certainly not legal trouble. There's nothing that says th

Re: Fw: [SAtalk] The Verisign folly

2003-09-16 Thread Matt Beland
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 16 September 2003 06:08 pm, Jeremy Kister wrote: > while the patches above are not the perfect solution, they are as close as > you can get while Verisign is in power. > > if anyone knows of a patch for BINDv9, please let me know. > There's

Fw: [SAtalk] The Verisign folly

2003-09-16 Thread Jeremy Kister
On Tuesday, September 16, 2003 9:32 AM, Kai Schaetz wrote: > Anyone knows a workaround for sendmail, so that it knows that any domain > pointing to 64.94.110.11 isn't valid? fix the problem by teaching your DNS server(s) that Verisign sucks: a patch exists for dnscache (from djbdns) at: http://tin

Re: [SAtalk] The Verisign folly

2003-09-16 Thread Greg Cirino
-tom > -Original Message- > http://www.iab.org/Documents/icann-vgrs-response.html the problem is all the other TLD's that are wildcard(ed) and hosted on other registrar roots. Not just .com and .net The .cn .tw (not yet .kr) are also using the same technique I believe there was a pos

RE: [SAtalk] The Verisign folly

2003-09-16 Thread J. S. Townsley
Note the date on that first letter. --JST * Covington, Chris [Tue, 16 Sep 2003] > From: "Covington, Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [SAtalk] The Verisign folly > > All interested parties should read: > > http://www.iab.o

Re: [SAtalk] The Verisign folly

2003-09-16 Thread daniel lance herrick
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Matt Thoene wrote: > On Tuesday, September 16, 2003 @ 11:09:25 AM [-0700], Covington, Chris wrote: > > > All interested parties should read: > > > http://www.iab.org/Documents/icann-vgrs-response.html > > > I just hope Verisign doesn't read this as "OK, we'll change an aspect

RE: [SAtalk] The Verisign folly

2003-09-16 Thread Bart Schaefer
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Tom Meunier wrote: > WTF is Verisign doing anyway? Deciding the Internet is their own > private toy? Making a grab for cash: Back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that VeriSign could create revenue of $1m per day for itself and partners if it could convert

RE: [SAtalk] The Verisign folly

2003-09-16 Thread Tom Meunier
Message- > From: Tom Meunier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 2:02 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [SAtalk] The Verisign folly > > > "Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 10:19:37 +1100" > > -tom > > > -Original Me

RE: [SAtalk] The Verisign folly

2003-09-16 Thread Covington, Chris
-Original Message- >From: J. S. Townsley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Note the date on that first letter. > >--JST * Covington, Chris [Tue, 16 Sep 2003] > From: "Covington, Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [SAtalk]

Re: [SAtalk] The Verisign folly

2003-09-16 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I'm sure ICANN has already gotten an earful. I, for one, and going to > leave ICANN alone so that they can concentrate on a course of action > against Verisign. > They have already responded in a letter to VeriSign: "To restore the data integrity and predictability of the DNS infrastructure, th

Re: [SAtalk] The Verisign folly

2003-09-16 Thread mikea
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 07:42:22PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I'm sure ICANN has already gotten an earful. I, for one, and going to > > leave ICANN alone so that they can concentrate on a course of action > > against Verisign. > > > They have already responded in a letter to VeriSign: >

RE: [SAtalk] The Verisign folly

2003-09-16 Thread Tom Meunier
"Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 10:19:37 +1100" -tom > -Original Message- > http://www.iab.org/Documents/icann-vgrs-response.html --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _

Re: [SAtalk] The Verisign folly

2003-09-16 Thread Matt Thoene
On Tuesday, September 16, 2003 @ 11:09:25 AM [-0700], Covington, Chris wrote: > All interested parties should read: > http://www.iab.org/Documents/icann-vgrs-response.html > I just hope Verisign doesn't read this as "OK, we'll change an aspect or > two of how the new system works." > Chris Wel

RE: [SAtalk] The Verisign folly

2003-09-16 Thread Covington, Chris
All interested parties should read: http://www.iab.org/Documents/icann-vgrs-response.html I just hope Verisign doesn't read this as "OK, we'll change an aspect or two of how the new system works." Chris --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:T

Re: [SAtalk] The Verisign folly

2003-09-16 Thread Evan Platt
--On Tuesday, September 16, 2003 12:03 PM -0500 Rich Puhek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On a side note, the tactic appears to have backfired... 64.94.110.11 > appears to be unpingable, and If I try typing a "made-up" domain into a > browser, the page times out. Perhaps Verisign is suffering the

Re: [SAtalk] The Verisign folly

2003-09-16 Thread Rich Puhek
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is an appalling unilateral abuse of VeriSign's power. Forget about the negative consequences. They are simply abusing their control over these TLDs to direct users who make typos to their site. Anyone know appropriate VeriSign, ICANN, or other e-mail addresses that

Re: [SAtalk] The Verisign folly

2003-09-16 Thread Robert Kehl
- Original Message - From: "Bill Landry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 4:56 PM > - Original Message - > From: "Kai Schaetzl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Anyone knows a workaround for sendmail, so that it knows that any domain > > pointing to 64.94.110.11 is

Re: [SAtalk] The Verisign folly

2003-09-16 Thread Bob Apthorpe
Hi, On 16 Sep 2003 01:57:58 -0700 Daniel Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kristian Koehntopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > How does this affect SpamAssassin and if it does, what are we doing > > about this? > > It has a very negative effect on some tests, particularly > NO_DNS_FOR_FROM

Re: [SAtalk] The Verisign folly

2003-09-16 Thread Bill Landry
- Original Message - From: "Kai Schaetzl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Anyone knows a workaround for sendmail, so that it knows that any domain > pointing to 64.94.110.11 isn't valid? I use Postfix, but if Sendmail support RHSBL lookups, point the zone to ".", which will process an "A" record q

Re: [SAtalk] The Verisign folly

2003-09-16 Thread Rick Macdougall
Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is an appalling unilateral abuse of VeriSign's power. Forget about the negative consequences. They are simply abusing their control over these TLDs to direct users who make typos to their site. Anyone know appropriate VeriSign, ICANN, or other e-mail addresses

RE: [SAtalk] The Verisign folly

2003-09-16 Thread Giles Coochey
Interesting Link: http://www.iab.org/Documents/icann-vgrs-response.html smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

RE: [SAtalk] The Verisign folly

2003-09-16 Thread Giles Coochey
I think they're already looking into it: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 16 September 2003 14:32 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [SAtalk] The Verisign folly This is an appalling unilateral abuse of VeriSign's power. Forget

Re: [SAtalk] The Verisign folly

2003-09-16 Thread Kai Schaetzl
Kristian Koehntopp wrote on Tue, 16 Sep 2003 08:09:31 +0200: > Verisign today just added wildcard A records pointing to 64.94.110.11 to the > .com and .net zones. > it's already been that way for .tv and .cc domains, but most people didn't notice. > How does this affect SpamAssassin and if it d

Re: [SAtalk] The Verisign folly

2003-09-16 Thread wrolf . courtney
| |To: Kristian Koehntopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | |cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | Subject: Re: [

Re: [SAtalk] The Verisign folly

2003-09-16 Thread Daniel Quinlan
Kristian Koehntopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > How does this affect SpamAssassin and if it does, what are we doing > about this? It has a very negative effect on some tests, particularly NO_DNS_FOR_FROM which caught roughly 2% of spam with a 99.9% accuracy rate (those are my real-time numbers w

Re: [SAtalk] The Verisign folly

2003-09-16 Thread Martin Huber
> How does this affect SpamAssassin and if it does, what are we > doing about this? Well, for one thing ORBS is "magically" alive again: :( RCVD_IN_ORBS (0.1 points) RBL: Received via a relay in orbs.dorkslayers.com [RBL check: found 170.94.78

[SAtalk] The Verisign folly

2003-09-16 Thread Kristian Koehntopp
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/16/0034210&mode=nested&tid=126&tid=95&tid=98&tid=99 Verisign today just added wildcard A records pointing to 64.94.110.11 to the .com and .net zones. How does this affect SpamAssassin and if it does, what are we doing about this? Kristian