On 27-Mar-99 Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
> Willam
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "William X. Walsh" writes:
>
> > > > Aw come-on doc. There is nothing illegal about it. There is no way, in
> > > > a
> > > > free society, that this can ever be illegal.
> > >
> > > Why is this list full of people who negate the facts of life?
> >
> > Actually, Dr Lisse, I must agree with Roland here.
>
> Well, see my line above.
You claim the facts of life oppose my comments? Exactly what facts, Dr Lisse?
> > > They are not in the root. Repat after me: They are not in the root!
> > > And if you didn't get it, THEY ARE NOT IN THE ROOT!!!
> >
> > And the fault for that lies with.........(hint: it's not ORSC or Richard)
>
> I didn't say who's fault it is. I am saying they are not in the root!
They are not in the root that you elect to use.
>
> > They are not in the USG controlled root, that is true, but what is
> > the reason they are not in that root, Dr Lisse? Could it be because
> > IANA initially, and then the USG, have effectively blocked access to
> > the root? And we have all seen the result of a single source
> > monopoly registry, yet ICANN chooses to perpetrate this injustice
> > further by not urgently pressing forward for any new gTLDs for 2
> > MORE years.
>
> William, this is totally besides the point.
>
> I have not commented at all whether I think they should be and/or
> others.
>
> And I have stated my position on this in the past very clearly.
>
> > > I could not give a flying lewd act about smart hosts and relays and
> > > all.
> > >
> > > The problem is NOT a) and b) as above.
> > >
> > > The problem is that *I* make that choice, NOT them.
> >
>
> > And you made the choice not to resolve those domains.
>
> > Just as many ISPs have made the choice not to resolve .cc domains
> > because of the plethora of spam sent from them a while back.
>
> .CC is a ccTLD domain and MUST be resolved.
Don't even tell someone what they MUST do on THEIR network, THEIR property, Dr
Lisse.
> > You have made a conscious election not to resolve those domains, Dr
> > Lisse, despite being made aware of a way that you CAN.
>
> It's *ME* who makes that decision. Not some .MOONie.
Yes,my point exactly, no one, let me reinforce that NO ONE, is trying to force
you to do ANYTHING.
>
> > Don't blame Richard, Roland, me, ORSC, or anyone else because of a
> > choice YOU have made. Many ISPs are making a choice to resolve
> > them, Dr Lisse, and I expect that number to grow.
>
> Who did I blame?
>
> I don't blame THEM for a choice I made. I ask them not to FORCE me to
> make that choice.
How are they forcing you, Dr Lisse? Does Richard, Roland, or myself have a gun
to your head requiring you to resolve any TLD?
> > > Nevermind that a) and b) have nothing to do with the problem at hand
> > > actually. The solution to avoid ths problem is trivial, by the way
> > >
> > > My MTA will not resolve it. It doesn't have to. No RFC requires me to
> > > have to misconfigure my properly configured software, they must
> > > configure their misconfigured software properly.
>
> > No RFC requires me to resolve .na, but I elect to.
>
> Actually, you might want to read up on that.
>
> > No RFC requires those ISPs who elected to from denying lookups for
> > networksolutions.com after their actions last weekend.
>
> Again, you are mistaken.
>
> > Your DECISION to configure your software this way is totally your
> > right, but don't blame us when you have problems reaching those
> > addresses.
>
> William, please get some sleep, and reread the above. I am not
> complaining that I can't reach them.
>
> I AM COMPLAINING THAT I DO NOT WANT TO REACH THESE ADDRESSES AND I
> DON`T WANT TO BE FORCED TO REACH THEM!!!!!!!
OK, so DON'T reach them. Dr Lisse, I think you need to reread the thread here,
as I am not sure you have any basis for your comments at all. No one posted a
message that says you are required to resolve ANY of these names.
Are you calmed down now?
> > > I really don't mind ORSC's cuckoo land, they can send me mail from the
> > > .MOON as much as I care, as long as they respond properly to the MTA's
> > > rejection.
> >
>
> > I fail to see why you are singling out ORSC here.
>
> What is the relevance of that? Your sentence I meant. ORSC is
> irrelevant anyway.
Not as irrelevent as you might think. I've been in conversation with numerous
ISPs over the last few days about this, and more are emailing me daily.
> > As a network operator, I have ELECTED to install a root zone of my
> > choosing, and it was my decision that this root zone would be the
> > one pulled from the ORSC staging root. Richard and others have made
> > the same individual decisions, and it is our right.
>
> I DO NOT want to make THAT decision, and THEY want to FORCE me to make
> that decision.
Um, no, they don't. No one wants to FORCE you to do anything. Where exactly
are you getting this impression, Doctor?
> > I have no issue with you Dr. Lisse, and your comments and opinions
> > in this process have been something I have personally appreciated
> > and respected. You have made certain decisions about the operation
> > of the network you control, and the TLD you administer. Some of
> > those decisions I do not agree with, and I might not have done them
> > the same way. But I for one would never belittle you for making
> > those choices.
>
> What does this have to do with anything.
>
> I am asking to have their misconfigured MTAs brought in line. They
> can play with whatever they want. I just don't want to be bothered by
> their incompetence.
Define the misconfiguration here. I don't see any basis for claiming
misconfigured MTA. The fact that they are able to send and receiving email
from/to TLDs that you aren't is not a misconfiguration, it is a personal choice.
> > Why you chose to belittle those who have decided to make this
> > choice, I fail to understand.
>
> I am no belittling nobody. You can not belittle the ORSC, it has less
> members and less clout than your favourite charity, the Intentional Nitwit
Example Gags . (Oops
> there is the word that triggers my filter again :-)-O)
S'ok, my filters automatically change it to its real meaning. :)
ORSC has more clout that you think. Look at the history of this process for
some examples of that, Dr. Lisse.
And has more ISPs decide to resolve names in the staging root, I think it lends
even more credibility to ORSC's position with regard to an "open root" policy.
It is your right, and privilege, to disagree, and to do whatever you chose to.
No one is trying to FORCE you to resolve .list, .isp, or any other TLD.
Why you think that they are is something I've been trying to piece
together......
Perhaps you could shed some light on the subject?
----------------------------------
William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Date: 27-Mar-99
Time: 03:41:41
----------------------------------
