> Il 27 marzo 2017 alle 0.22 "Rob McEwen, invaluement.com"
> ha scritto:
>
>
> John Levine said:
> "The problem is that the pro-crime crowd keep demanding that all the rest be
> anonymous or effectively anonymous, too."
>
> Exactly!
>
> Also, like some who are arguing against Neil Sw. on this
I have a hotmail account that I opened in 2000
And yes, I do see the childish style of argument that you mention.
--srs
> On 27-Mar-2017, at 2:28 AM, John Levine wrote:
>
> But I can't help noticing that people keep trying to change the topic.
> Once again, nobody* has a problem with privacy
On 26 Mar 2017 20:58:50 -
"John Levine" wrote:
> In article <20170326220333.3c517c48@quill> you write:
> >If I want to be able to give people information for being able to
> >contact me via the Internet, so that I can have a reasonable
> >expectation of being able to make sure that this will
John Levine said:
"The problem is that the pro-crime crowd keep demanding that all the rest be
anonymous or effectively anonymous, too."
Exactly!
Also, like some who are arguing against Neil Sw. on this, I too consider myself
to be a very strong privacy advocate too. However what we currently ha
On 03/26/2017 01:58 PM, John Levine wrote:
But I can't help noticing that people keep trying to change the topic.
Not changing the topic, refuting your statement that no one needs their
own domain name to communicate on the Internet.
Once again, nobody* has a problem with privacy protection
On Sun, Mar 26, 2017, at 13:58, John Levine wrote:
> In article <20170326220333.3c517c48@quill> you write:
> >If I want to be able to give people information for being able to
> >contact me via the Internet, so that I can have a reasonable expectation
> >of being able to make sure that this will st
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017, at 13:34, Neil Schwartzman wrote:
> *PLEASE JOIN THE ICANN GROUP* and help us fight back against people
> who are fighting *in favour* of crime.
Please also take the time to understand that your needs are not my
needs. I would be in favour of a WHOIS system that doesn't exp
In article <20170326220333.3c517c48@quill> you write:
>If I want to be able to give people information for being able to
>contact me via the Internet, so that I can have a reasonable expectation
>of being able to make sure that this will still work in 20 years
>(provided I am then still alive and h
On Sun, Mar 26, 2017, at 13:03, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> On 26 Mar 2017 00:20:17 -
> "John Levine" wrote:
>
> > Of course. But the fraction of domains registered by natural people
> > is quite low. And, of course, the claim that you need your own second
> > level domain to communicate on the
On 26 Mar 2017 00:20:17 -
"John Levine" wrote:
> Of course. But the fraction of domains registered by natural people
> is quite low. And, of course, the claim that you need your own second
> level domain to communicate on the Internet is ridiculous.
Depends on the time horizon.
If I want
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 6:36 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>Is there a way to decrease the cost of enforcement, and to increase
>>leverage over abusive domains, while still allowing private
>>registration?
>
> Sure. Do what .CA does, limit proxies to natural people, and remove
> the proxy if the domain
In article
you write:
>Don't abuse fighters usually need to know WHOIS data, not to act on it
>directly ourselves ... but rather to direct *someone else's* attention
>to the registrant? Like their network upstream, or their systems
>"upstream" (hosting provider), or law enforcement, etc.?
Often.
Namecheap is in a minority as far as private registrations routing to the
customer are concerned.
--srs
> On 26-Mar-2017, at 7:14 AM, Eric Tykwinski wrote:
>
> f there’s a private registration service not forwarding notices, than bring
> them up and name and shame.
__
It seems to me that people are getting rather hot headed about this.
First, I would suggest just emailing yourself on a private registration.
I did and it seems to work fine for me at least:
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.virtcolo.com (Postfix)
with ESMTP id 2292374053
It's been a while since I worked the abuse desk, but "using WHOIS to
combat abuse" is a convenient handle that may gloss over an important
part of how it's really used.
Don't abuse fighters usually need to know WHOIS data, not to act on it
directly ourselves ... but rather to direct *someone else'
John, I know you know better than to remove the attribution of the quote
you're replying to ...
On 03/25/2017 05:20 PM, John Levine wrote:
When it comes to privacy I'm much more concerned about the most
vulnerable folks not being required to publish their residential address
and personal phone
Oh, you were responding to a comment about some registrars (actually a single
Chinese outfit that seems to get a resellership at multiple tiny registrars)
scraping Whois to convince domain name holders to switch their service right?
--srs
> On 26-Mar-2017, at 6:08 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
>
>
FYI, you removed the attribution of the statement you're replying to
here. That's generally considered rude in e-mail list circles.
On 03/25/2017 05:02 PM, Al Iverson wrote:
And to John's objection to privacy for companies in another
message, your outlook is unrealistic. It's often very importan
>When it comes to privacy I'm much more concerned about the most
>vulnerable folks not being required to publish their residential address
>and personal phone number in whois. Those actually can be serious
>threats, up to and including physical harm for some.
Of course. But the fraction of dom
On 03/25/2017 04:47 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
And maybe figure out which registrar it is that is trying to steal their
customers and using whatever process ICANN has to stop them.
I'm not familiar with the issue that you're referring to.
On 26-Mar-2017, at 2:00 AM, Doug Barton wrot
> And to John's objection to privacy for companies in another message, your
> outlook is unrealistic. It's often very important to secure names in advance
> for a project that hasn't been publicly announced (because once it's
> announced the speculators will swoop in). Not being able to mask owners
And maybe figure out which registrar it is that is trying to steal their
customers and using whatever process ICANN has to stop them.
--srs
> On 26-Mar-2017, at 2:00 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
>
> A lot? Probably? But that's part of being a domain holder. IMO the registrars
> should be doing a be
On 03/25/2017 06:36 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 03/24/2017 09:44 PM, John Levine wrote:
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 are not registered by people.
Tha
> On Mar 25, 2017, at 1:29 PM, John R Levine wrote:
>
>>> The reality is that the vast majority of domain registrations are made
>>> by businesses with no reasonable expectation of privacy.
>>
>> I'm not sure if this is actually true for new registrations. Prior to
>> launch of a web site, man
The reality is that the vast majority of domain registrations are made
by businesses with no reasonable expectation of privacy.
I'm not sure if this is actually true for new registrations. Prior to
launch of a web site, many businesses are eager to conceal the
identity of the domain holder, to
Of course it is. for pre-release one can use CSC CORPORATE DOMAINS, INC. or
another proxy holder until you go live. This is an edge-case.
> On Mar 25, 2017, at 12:26 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * John Levine:
>
>> The reality is that the vast majority of domain registrations are made
>> b
Let us say that even fake data tells us some interesting stories, when viewed
in aggregate
--srs
> On 25-Mar-2017, at 9:56 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> I continue to be amazed that people get useful data out of the mess
> that is WHOIS.
___
mailop
* John Levine:
> The reality is that the vast majority of domain registrations are made
> by businesses with no reasonable expectation of privacy.
I'm not sure if this is actually true for new registrations. Prior to
launch of a web site, many businesses are eager to conceal the
identity of the
On 03/25/2017 11:19 AM, Neil Schwartzman wrote:
How much does what cost?
Running the WHOIS infrastructure, forcing the registrars and end users
to keep the listings up-to-date, etc. I.e. whatever costs exist relative
to just turning it off.
Thousands. tens of thousands, perhaps even, no
The maawg abuse metrics, various studies on malware (and just how many domains
malware use etc) might give you some numbers.
Add a lot more that target closed messaging platforms (skype/ fb / WhatsApp etc)
The volumes are staggeringly high as absolute numbers. As Neil says, they're
enough to k
> On Mar 25, 2017, at 9:36 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> On 03/24/2017 09:44 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>
>> 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 are not regi
On 03/24/2017 09:44 PM, John Levine wrote:
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 are not registered by people.
That's a self-fulfilling prophecy. How many of those
>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
f Of John Levine
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 3:20 PM
To: mailop@mailop.org
Cc: rob.gold...@astutium.com
Subject: Re: [mailop] LOUDMOUTHS WANTED!! ICANN WHOIS Replacement Work URGENT
IMPORTANT ACTION NEEDED
In article
<099901d2a4e5$b44bfab0$1ce3f010$@astutium.com<mailto:099901d2
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
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
43 matches
Mail list logo
