-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Dr. Lisse,
Just as it is YOU who makes the dicision, it is OTHERS who will (and
have) decided to follow an alternative DNS root structure. Lack of
appropriate action by ICANN and others will not stop that appropriate
action.
Gene Marsh
Diebold Incorporated
- -----Original Message-----
From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 1999 6:34 AM
To: William X. Walsh
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: Public use of new gTLDs
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.
> > 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 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> > 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!!!!!!!
> > 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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 INEG. (Oops
there is the word that triggers my filter again :-)-O)
el
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2
iQA/AwUBNwBWYJHtPfG6xLnPEQIt8QCdHhe1Vuj1c5hktExoRb9vMPreSUoAn2Y2
EK6QQStJPYe2r72NtW24Wt52
=rbpN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
