On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 23:34:04 -0400 (EDT), Dean Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Dr. Jeffrey Race wrote:
A few comments (interleaved) to clarify the record :)
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 19:14:14 -0400 (EDT), Dean Anderson wrote:
Indeed. These open relay blacklist sites were always a highly
I submitted my I-D several weeks ago,but I haven't received even a piece of
advice.This I-D is about the search protocol for library.Now there are more
and more databases in library,we often have to search in many databases one
by one to get the precise and comprehensive recorder.It's maybe not
Dean writes:
In fact, the 3 most popular browsers, MSIE, Netscape,
and Mozilla, which account for perhaps 90% of the browser
market, do not display Page not found, but take you
to MSN, and Netscape search pages, respectively.
That's easy to turn off, and I do so routinely.
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Dean Anderson wrote in reply to Doug Royer:
No. On once case your get a no such host error and never send the
email in the first place and the other case gets a bounce. Not the same
thing.
You don't seem to understand how mail works. In both cases you get a
bounce.
Weird things often seem to come in threes. The third IP-related
insanely greedy weirdness for last week involved the Dewey Decimal
system and its current corporate, er, guardians:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-dewey-decimal-
I'm hoping for a 'change of faith' based on the $100 Million lawsuit.
I can't believe anyone capable of doing this, would do this. Even the paper
newspapers get this is somehow a bad development; (ie wall st journal).
Proves ICANN is not interested in the integrity of the DNS to have permitted
Dan writes:
Proves ICANN is not interested in the integrity of the DNS to have
permitted
this.
ICANN is probably busy trying to find a way to copyright the root domain.
Everyone wants his slice of the unlimited possibilities for manufactured
wealth inherent in IP law.
Nathaniel writes:
Weird things often seem to come in threes. The third IP-related
insanely greedy weirdness for last week involved the Dewey Decimal
system and its current corporate, er, guardians:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-dewey-decimal-
--On 23. september 2003 17:03 +0800 wang liang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I submitted my I-D several weeks ago,but I haven't received even a piece
of advice.This I-D is about the search protocol for library.Now there are
more and more databases in library,we often have to search in many
On 05:31 23/09/03, Larry Smith said:
This is what verisign has changed...
I am afraid this is not what they have changed, this is what IETF has not
addressed in 20 years.
Let not blame the need. Let blame the lack of solutions.
jfc
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, at 16:13 [=GMT+0200], Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Dan writes:
Proves ICANN is not interested in the integrity of the DNS to have
permitted
this.
ICANN is probably busy trying to find a way to copyright the root domain.
Everyone wants his slice of the unlimited
Dean Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Doug Royer wrote:
You do not seem to be getting the message the MTA and MUA MAY be the same
program. So NOT true.
I do. Even in the same program, they are different functions. The MTA
should return a bounce. You should always get a bounce, in
Dan said earlier:
Proves ICANN is not interested in the integrity of the DNS to have
permitted this.
Marc said is reasponse (to some extent):
ICANN is probably busy trying to find a way to copyright the root domain.
Everyone wants his slice of the unlimited possibilities for manufactured
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Larry Smith wrote:
Have followed the thread and am aware of what has been said. Point still
remains, your comment is that in neither case will the message get
delivered - and my comment was not totally true. I am not referring to the
MUA doing the check, I am
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Masataka Ohta wrote:
You say names. But, is it whois names or domain names?
I mean people useful names. Whois is a protocol for accessing the
registration of names. DNS is a a protocol for distributing Records
Wrong.
Whois protocol is a protocol
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Dr. Jeffrey Race wrote:
No, it isn't. And it is an illegal method, because you (if you are an
ISP), probably don't have permission to block non-spam mail.
You may wish to take legal advice on this as you are incorrect in your
belief. It is a matter of contract between
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Doug Royer wrote:
The HIPPA argument doesn't fly at all. However, Verisign is also subject
to the ECPA, and may not disclose the contents email, any more than any
other communications providers can. No confidentiality (HIPPA or
otherwise) is broken.
I'm not sure if you
Dean Anderson wrote:
...
HIPPA covers _medical_ information. Email addresses are not medical
information. The email address in an email message is not a medical record
protected by HIPPA. Third, the email address is already being disclosed
to the ISP running the relay.
You keep assuming
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Doug Royer wrote:
HIPPA covers _medical_ information. Email addresses are not medical
information. The email address in an email message is not a medical record
protected by HIPPA. Third, the email address is already being disclosed
to the ISP running the relay.
You
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 02:24:42PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
That is irrelevant to the discussion.
What is relevant to this discussion?
It goes on endlessly (although I'm only seeing 50% of the posts without
looking in my special folder :)
Tim
Dean;
You say names. But, is it whois names or domain names?
I mean people useful names. Whois is a protocol for accessing the
registration of names. DNS is a a protocol for distributing Records
Wrong.
Whois protocol is a protocol for accessing the
Domain registry is a part of DNS system and is of no importance
as long as proper names are returned for DNS queries.
Good, Then we agree: Verisign is not doing anything wrong. Wildcards are
part of the DNS protocol. A wildcard is a proper name .. returned for
DNS queries.
Dean wrote:
The fact still remains that DNS entries do not necessarilly imply
registration, and that the DNS protocol cannot be used to make registry
queries.
This is getting so far from the topic it's not funny.
Do any of the systems broken by Verisign try and do REGISTRY queries through
DNS?
Dean;
Domain registry is a part of DNS system and is of no importance
as long as proper names are returned for DNS queries.
Good, Then we agree: Verisign is not doing anything wrong.
As long as Verisign's registry has nothing to do with the result for
com/net TLD query, yes.
Wildcards
James;
Dean wrote:
The fact still remains that DNS entries do not necessarilly imply
registration, and that the DNS protocol cannot be used to make registry
queries.
This is getting so far from the topic it's not funny.
Do any of the systems broken by Verisign try and do REGISTRY
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Wildcards are part of the DNS protocol.
You are still trying to confuse the system and a protocol in vain.
It is you who is struggling in vain. You and the rest of the reverse DNS
abusers are confused. They and you, have been proven wrong on this
folks,
It should be obvious by now that there are people who stubbornly believe
that Big Companies have the Inalienable Right to screw Hundreds of Millions
of Individual Users if it makes them lots of money and if it doesn't happen to
violate the letter of an IETF protocol. Presumably those same
Most of this is becoming tedious and circular. Different people are
posting the same canards. But I don't want people to go away with the
impression that I didn't use precise language to explain things. E.g
domain names in place of domains, or registry of domain names in
place of registry.
On
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 19:35:45 EDT, Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
There has been no evidence that Verisign has collected any sender
addresses, nor would there be any reason for them to want to.
*plonk* Sorry Dean, you've finally managed to push over the edge from possibly
just dense
Dean wrote:
Specifically, you insist that DNS queries, via DNS _protocol_
can be used to check if a domain exists.
You are pointedly ignoring the fact that there are two planes of
existence. There is the conceptual plane - the registry records, saying
you have control over the name. Then there is
Keith is very right. This discussion is accomplishing nothing. All it is
doing is trying to write to read-only minds (nice turn of phrase Keith) and
wasting time.
The question is - what now? Sit and watch Verisign abuse their custodianship
by feeding us advertising?
--James
Disclaimer: Whilst
31 matches
Mail list logo
