>Reasonable people are going to disagree about whether or not the
>trade-offs involved in running the WHOIS system are worth it.
Sure, but the arguments we're seeing at ICANN are way beyond
reasonable. Everyone thinks it's important to protect the personal
information of people, but most domains
In article you write:
>I agree with Mike on this one. Yes WHOISd does need a replacement, and I was
>thinking that’s what RDAP was about.
RDAP fixes the technical problems, replacing the ad-hoc port 43 cruft
with a well specified system that uses standard JSON formatted data and
standard http q
On 03/24/2017 06:20 PM, John Levine wrote:
In article <099901d2a4e5$b44bfab0$1ce3f010$@astutium.com> you write:
PLEASE JOIN THE ICANN GROUP and help us fight back against people who
are fighting in favour of crime.
Utter bovine droppings.
No-one on the ICANN RDS/PDP WG is fighting in favour o
I agree with Mike on this one. Yes WHOISd does need a replacement, and I was
thinking that’s what RDAP was about.
Getting rid of it entirely makes absolutely no sense, and will probably have
many repercussions like everyone here has noted…
I have no problems with private registrations, they shou
On 17-03-24 02:29 PM, Rob Golding wrote:
Is that referring to the possibility that companies who make their business
parsing/trawling/storing whois data may not be able to sell the ~150 million
registrant names/addresses/phone-numbers/emails for their own commercial gain
on one suggested gated
If a reliable WHOIS replacement is not proffered...
The Pro-Privacy crowd will have all the privacy they want and more.
Because I suspect, personally, not speaking for my employer, that there will be
many, many places where their connects will be refused without recourse.
Aloha,
Michael.
-
On 3/24/17 3:08 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
> Write to spamhaus and ask. It could be one of your customers doing
> something odd, it could be a misfire on something at spamhaus. If
> you've done some due diligence before you write to them (with the IP
> in the subject line, ideally)
Thanks! Sadly, I'v
In article <099901d2a4e5$b44bfab0$1ce3f010$@astutium.com> you write:
>> PLEASE JOIN THE ICANN GROUP and help us fight back against people who
>> are fighting in favour of crime.
>
>Utter bovine droppings.
>
>No-one on the ICANN RDS/PDP WG is fighting in favour of "crime".
Thanks for this illustra
> On Mar 24, 2017, at 1:16 PM, Robert L Mathews wrote:
>
> Over the last two days, our outbound customer mail servers have been
> repeatedly listed on the Spamhaus CSS ("snowshoe spammers"). This is
> odd, because unless I'm misunderstanding, the Spamhaus CSS isn't
> supposed to list "normal" ma
Unfortunately, automated bounce handling to know what means "no more mails
will ever go to this address" vs "some other mail might work" is not an
exact science.
Ie, mailman gets confused at DMARC rejects. The bounce handling when I
worked on Y!Groups was very complicated, and involved sending pe
http://www.cauce.org/2017/03/loudmouths-wanted-icann-whois-replacement-work-urgent-important-action-needed.html
> On Mar 24, 2017, at 5:30 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
>
> On 3/24/2017 4:34 PM, Neil Schwartzman wrote:
>> ICANN has yet another group looking at WHOIS, and there is ahuge push to
>> redact
On 3/24/2017 4:34 PM, Neil Schwartzman wrote:
ICANN has yet another group looking at WHOIS, and there is ahuge push to
redact it to nothing. I spend easily half my day in WHOIS data fighting
online crime, losing it would not make my job harder, it will make it
impossible.
Neil,
I 100% agree wi
If WHOIS interests you for whatever reason, then yes, please do get involved
with the policy processes.
In specific response this email ...
> PLEASE JOIN THE ICANN GROUP and help us fight back against people who
> are fighting in favour of crime.
Utter bovine droppings.
No-one on the ICANN RDS
TL;DR? It’s worth reading, BUT, if not - ICANN has yet another group looking at
WHOIS, and there is ahuge push to redact it to nothing. I spend easily half my
day in WHOIS data fighting online crime, losing it would not make my job
harder, it will make it impossible.
PLEASE JOIN THE ICANN GROU
Over the last two days, our outbound customer mail servers have been
repeatedly listed on the Spamhaus CSS ("snowshoe spammers"). This is
odd, because unless I'm misunderstanding, the Spamhaus CSS isn't
supposed to list "normal" mail servers (ours send hundreds of
individual, non-bulk messages per
I never got answers from postmaster/abuse inboxes from Fastweb.
Either your IP is in CloudMark CSI or your email content is flagged by
CloudMark Authority.
Try sending an email to a @libero.it inbox and if it goes to the spam
folder you know it is CloudMark Authority and you also get the CloudMark
I have a client getting blocked by fastwebnet.it with this code:
Error code is simply: 554 Message refused
We're already trying abuse@/postmaster@ for both fastwebnet.it and
fastweb.it. Does anyone know of any better way to contact them about this?
-Tim
__
17 matches
Mail list logo
