On 8/15/07, Barry Shein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not sure tasting is criminal or fraud.
...
Well, not all of us agree that these ad-only pages are particularly a
problem. They're certainly not necessarily criminal or fraudulent
except by some stretch.
There are different
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- Chris L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Douglas Otis wrote:
That point forward, spammers would be less able to take advantage
of domains in flux, and policy schemes would be far less perilous for
are spammers really
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Paul Ferguson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- Chris L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Douglas Otis wrote:
That point forward, spammers would be less able to take advantage
of domains in flux, and policy schemes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- Chris L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More than ~85% of all spam is being generated by spambots.
yes, that relates to my question how though? I asked: Do spammers monitor
the domain system in order to spam from the domains in flux as
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Al Iverson wrote:
On 8/14/07, Douglas Otis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This comment was added as a follow-on note. Sorry for not being clear.
Accepting messages from a domain lacking MX records might be risky
due to the high rate of domain turnovers. Within a few
On August 13, 2007 at 16:01 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Carl Karsten) wrote:
Barry Shein wrote:
That is, if you extend domains on credit w/o any useful accountability
of the buyer and this results in a pattern of criminality then the
liability for that fraud should be shared by the
On Aug 14, 2007, at 11:00 PM, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Paul Ferguson wrote:
More than ~85% of all spam is being generated by spambots.
yes, that relates to my question how though? I asked: Do spammers
monitor the domain system in order to spam from the domains in flux
On 8/15/07, Barry Shein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not sure tasting is criminal or fraud.
Neither am I, we agree. I meant if there's subsequent criminality or
fraud that should be dealt with separately.
Dumb question, not necessarily looking to call you or anyone out, but
I'm curious:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 02:38:48PM -0500, Al Iverson wrote:
I'm curious: What valid, legitimate, or likely to be used non-criminal
reasons are there for domain tasting?
Making money on the basis of the published policies of a registry? If
this were some sort of Web 2.0 application, everybody
On Aug 15, 2007, at 12:38 PM, Al Iverson wrote:
Dumb question, not necessarily looking to call you or anyone out,
but I'm curious: What valid, legitimate, or likely to be used non-
criminal reasons are there for domain tasting?
This article describes the motivation leading to domain
On August 15, 2007 at 14:38 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Al Iverson) wrote:
On 8/15/07, Barry Shein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not sure tasting is criminal or fraud.
Neither am I, we agree. I meant if there's subsequent criminality or
fraud that should be dealt with separately.
On Aug 15, 2007, at 2:55 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
It seems to me that this should be an issue between the domain
registrars and their customers, but maybe some over-arching policy
is making it difficult to do the right thing?
Charging a re-stocking fee sounded perfectly reasonable. I don't
On Aug 15, 2007, at 2:55 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
Then my next question is, what reasons are there where it'd be
wise/useful/non-criminal to do it on a large scale?
It's a relatively passive activity when used for ad pages, no one
forces anyone to look at them. I'm not sure what the
David Schwartz wrote:
That doesn't make anything criminal or fraud any more than free
samples. If a
registrar wants to give a refund, I don't see anything wrong with that.
It is certainly fraud to take an entire pile of free samples.
can you cite how that law reads?
Oddly enough I am in
At 6:45 PM -0500 8/13/07, Carl Karsten wrote:
Ken Eddings wrote:
At 4:32 PM -0400 8/13/07, Justin Scott wrote:
Do people really not plan that far ahead, that they
need brand new domain names to be active (not just
reserved) within seconds?
I can say from my experience working in a web development
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- Marshall Eubanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 14, 2007, at 12:19 AM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
I was just struck by a couple of statistics:
[snip]
In January 2007, according to PIR five registrars deleted 1,773,910
domain
names during
: not grandma)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Ken Eddings
Sent: Tuesday, 14 August 2007 7:46 AM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: [policy] When Tech Meets Policy...
At 4:32 PM -0400 8/13/07, Justin Scott wrote:
Do people really not plan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- Carl Karsten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oddly enough I am in possession of 20+ fee samples that were the left
overs from
a hand out, and I was cleaning up the place. pretty sure I did not break
any
laws. I know that isn't what you meant, but
: not grandma)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Ken Eddings
Sent: Tuesday, 14 August 2007 7:46 AM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: [policy] When Tech Meets Policy...
At 4:32 PM -0400 8/13/07, Justin Scott wrote:
Do people really not plan
On Mon, August 13, 2007 11:27 pm, Roland Dobbins wrote:
2.People tend to be much more careful about punching numbers into a
telephone than typing words on a keyboard, I think. There's also not
a conceptual conflation of common typo mistakes with common telephone
number transpositions, I
On Tue, August 14, 2007 1:48 am, Douglas Otis wrote:
For domains to play any role in securing email, a published MX record
should become a necessary acceptance requirement. Using MX records
also consolidates policy locales which mitigates some DDoS concerns.
What if there's no intention to
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Aug 13 20:15:50 2007
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:37:09 -0500
From: Carl Karsten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: [policy] When Tech Meets Policy...
J Bacher wrote:
Carl Karsten wrote:
That is, if you extend domains on credit w/o any
John Levine wrote:
I am assuming that
A. a registrar would get less business being less forgiving than others.
Do you know what your current registrar's refund policy is? Do you know
what other registrars' policies are? Why haven't you switched to the
registrar that offers the cheapest
On Aug 14, 2007, at 3:50 AM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- Marshall Eubanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 14, 2007, at 12:19 AM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
I was just struck by a couple of statistics:
[snip]
In January 2007, according to PIR five
Carl Karsten wrote:
I am not sure tasting is criminal or fraud.
You got what you ordered. You used it. You pay for it. It's that
simple.
That doesn't make anything criminal or fraud any more than free
samples. If a registrar wants to give a refund, I don't see anything
wrong with
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Justin Scott wrote:
Perhaps it would be better to allow for domain returns, but shorten the
time limit to 24 hours. That should be long enough to catch a typo, but
too short to be much use for traffic tasting.
Still long enough to be useful for spammers :-(
Tony.
--
On 8/14/07, Tim Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, August 14, 2007 1:48 am, Douglas Otis wrote:
For domains to play any role in securing email, a published MX record
should become a necessary acceptance requirement. Using MX records
also consolidates policy locales which
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
maybe I'm just thick, but how exactly does tastinng inhibit anti-phishing
efforts?
Domain names are used as loookup keys in anti-phishing blacklists.
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dotat.at/
IRISH SEA: SOUTHERLY, BACKING
On 8/14/07, Roger Marquis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Carl Karsten wrote:
I am not saying tasting is a free speech thing, but I do see it
as something currently legal, and don't see a way to make it a
crime without adversely effecting the rest of the system.
It is perfectly legal, and no
On Aug 14, 2007, at 9:29 AM, Al Iverson wrote:
On 8/14/07, Tim Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, August 14, 2007 1:48 am, Douglas Otis wrote:
For domains to play any role in securing email, a published MX
record should become a necessary acceptance requirement. Using
MX
On 8/14/07, Douglas Otis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This comment was added as a follow-on note. Sorry for not being clear.
Accepting messages from a domain lacking MX records might be risky
due to the high rate of domain turnovers. Within a few weeks, more
than the number of existing
This comment was added as a follow-on note. Sorry for not being clear.
Accepting messages from a domain lacking MX records might be risky
due to the high rate of domain turnovers. Within a few weeks, more
than the number of existing domains will have been added and deleted
by then.
On Wed, 2007-08-15 at 11:58 +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
Accepting messages from a domain lacking MX records might be risky
due to the high rate of domain turnovers. Within a few weeks,
more than the number of existing domains will have been added and
deleted by then. Spammers take
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- Douglas Otis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A clearer and safer strategy would be to insist that anyone who cares
about their email delivery, publish a valid MX record. Especially when
the domain is that of a government agency dealing with
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Douglas Otis wrote:
That point forward, spammers would be less able to take advantage
of domains in flux, and policy schemes would be far less perilous for
are spammers really doing this? do they mine the domain system for changes
and utilze those for their purposes? I
On Wed, 2007-08-15 at 11:58 +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
Accepting messages from a domain lacking MX records might be risky
due to the high rate of domain turnovers. Within a few weeks,
more than the number of existing domains will have been added and
deleted by then. Spammers
That's exactly the problem the goal of tasting is to collect pay
per click ad revenue...
Ten years ago the internet was for porn, now it's for
MLM/Affiliate/PPC scams. As long as we put up with companies abusing
the Internet as long as they are making a buck, they'll keep doing it.
The
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, John C. A. Bambenek wrote:
That's exactly the problem the goal of tasting is to collect pay
per click ad revenue...
Ten years ago the internet was for porn, now it's for
MLM/Affiliate/PPC scams. As long as we put up with companies abusing
the Internet as long
The real way to get rid of tasting would be to persuade Google and
Yahoo/Overture to stop paying for clicks on pages with no content
other than ads, but that would be far too reasonable.
I don't see a practical way to enforce it.
I believe the Net is an unstable system that will eventually
On Aug 13, 2007, at 11:03 AM, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
So, to be clear folks want to make it much more difficult for
grandma-jones to return the typo'd: mygramdkids.com for
mygrandkids.com right?
Grandma will still need to make a payment for the domain. Grandma is
also unlikely to find
Chris L. Morrow wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, John C. A. Bambenek wrote:
That's exactly the problem the goal of tasting is to collect pay
per click ad revenue...
Ten years ago the internet was for porn, now it's for
MLM/Affiliate/PPC scams. As long as we put up with companies abusing
On Aug 13, 2007, at 11:03 AM, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, John C. A. Bambenek wrote:
That's exactly the problem the goal of tasting is to collect pay
per click ad revenue...
Ten years ago the internet was for porn, now it's for
MLM/Affiliate/PPC scams. As long as
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Douglas Otis wrote:
On Aug 13, 2007, at 11:03 AM, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
So, to be clear folks want to make it much more difficult for
grandma-jones to return the typo'd: mygramdkids.com for
mygrandkids.com right?
Grandma will still need to make a payment for
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Carl Karsten wrote:
So, to be clear folks want to make it much more difficult for
grandma-jones to return the typo'd: mygramdkids.com for mygrandkids.com
right?
Not just that, they want registrars to take a revenue cut.
I am assuming that
A. a registrar would
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Steve Atkins wrote:
On Aug 13, 2007, at 11:03 AM, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
So, to be clear folks want to make it much more difficult for
grandma-jones to return the typo'd: mygramdkids.com for
mygrandkids.com
right?
If grandma-jones orders custom stationery and
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
but today that provision is: If you buy a domain you have 5 days to
'return' it. The reason behind the return could be: oops, I typo'd or
hurray, please refund me for the 1M domains I bought 4.99 days ago!. The
'protect the consumer' problem is what's
but today that provision is: If you buy a domain you have 5 days to
'return' it. The reason behind the return could be: oops, I typo'd
Fine, I don't recall that being the case previously so somone thought
to introduce it
hurray, please refund me for the 1M domains I bought 4.99 days ago!.
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Sean Donelan wrote:
Do people really not plan that far ahead, that they need brand new domain
names to be active (not just reserved) within seconds?
I'm really not sure, but I can imagine a slew of issues where 'marketting'
doesn't plan properly and corp-ID/corp-branding
Chris L. Morrow wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Steve Atkins wrote:
On Aug 13, 2007, at 11:03 AM, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
So, to be clear folks want to make it much more difficult for
grandma-jones to return the typo'd: mygramdkids.com for
mygrandkids.com
right?
If grandma-jones orders custom
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, William Herrin wrote:
Chris,
Suggestion B in ICANN's information request was:
making the ICANN annual transaction fee (currently 0.20 USD per year)
apply to names deleted during the [5-day Add Grace Period],
Wouldn't this essentially end the bad-behavior domain
Do people really not plan that far ahead, that they
need brand new domain names to be active (not just
reserved) within seconds?
I can say from my experience working in a web development environment,
yes. I can recall several cases where we needed to get a domain online
quickly for one
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:52:37 -, Chris L. Morrow said:
I'm really not sure, but I can imagine a slew of issues where 'marketting'
doesn't plan properly and corp-ID/corp-branding end up trying to register
and make-live a domain at the 11th hour...
Failure to plan ahead on your part doesn't
Barry Shein wrote:
On August 13, 2007 at 10:11 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Douglas Otis) wrote:
On Aug 12, 2007, at 6:41 AM, John Levine wrote:
The problems with domain tasting more affect web users, with vast
number of typosquat parking pages flickering in and out of existence.
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:52:37 -, Chris L. Morrow said:
I'm really not sure, but I can imagine a slew of issues where 'marketting'
doesn't plan properly and corp-ID/corp-branding end up trying to register
and make-live a domain at the 11th
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Carl Karsten wrote:
Assuming a change takes place (which I doubt, but will ignore) I bet a
small non refundable fee (like $1) would drastically reduce the problem.
A agree that somehow you have to increase the cost to the 'tasters'
without hurting joe-six-pack. I think
On Aug 13, 2007, at 1:32 PM, Justin Scott wrote:
Usually it revolves around the
marketing department not being in-touch with the rest of the
company and
the wrong/misspelled domain name ends up in a print/radio/tv ad
that is
about to go to thousands of people and cannot be changed.
Yes, if grandma ordered a sign printed one way, and proofread it, and agreed
to pay for it, and the printer printed it, then the printer is normally
going to want money to make another different sign. If grandma, or anyone
else, orders a domain, and confirms that's the domain they want, and get's
Or perhaps domains can be on-line instantly for a $100 non-refundable rush
fee, or be cheaper and more refundable if you don't mind waiting longer
(long enough to fix the tasting issues) And yes, I suppose ICANN or similar
would have to collect or mandate the costs for it to affect all areas of
At 4:32 PM -0400 8/13/07, Justin Scott wrote:
Do people really not plan that far ahead, that they
need brand new domain names to be active (not just
reserved) within seconds?
I can say from my experience working in a web development environment,
yes. I can recall several cases where we
On Aug 13, 2007, at 2:06 PM, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
why don't the equivalent 'domain tasters' on the phone side exploit
the ability to sign
up 1-8XX numbers like mad and send the calls to their ad-music call
centers?
1. Maybe they do.
;
2. People tend to be much more
On Aug 13, 2007, at 4:58 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:52:37 -, Chris L. Morrow said:
I'm really not sure, but I can imagine a slew of issues where
'marketting'
doesn't plan properly and corp-ID/corp-branding end up trying to
register
and make-live a domain at
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- Roland Dobbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's a case to be made that a policy which results in
organizations registering and owning domain names which are close to
the intended domain anme but represent a common typographical
transition
Carl Karsten wrote:
That is, if you extend domains on credit w/o any useful accountability
of the buyer and this results in a pattern of criminality then the
liability for that fraud should be shared by the seller.
I am not sure tasting is criminal or fraud.
You got what you ordered. You
Ken Eddings wrote:
At 4:32 PM -0400 8/13/07, Justin Scott wrote:
Do people really not plan that far ahead, that they
need brand new domain names to be active (not just
reserved) within seconds?
I can say from my experience working in a web development environment,
yes. I can recall several
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I was just struck by a couple of statistics:
[snip]
In January 2007, according to PIR five registrars deleted 1,773,910 domain
names during the grace period and retained 10,862. That same month,
VeriSign reported that among top ten registrars, 95%
J Bacher wrote:
Carl Karsten wrote:
That is, if you extend domains on credit w/o any useful accountability
of the buyer and this results in a pattern of criminality then the
liability for that fraud should be shared by the seller.
I am not sure tasting is criminal or fraud.
You got what
On Aug 13, 2007, at 2:01 PM, Carl Karsten wrote:
I am not sure tasting is criminal or fraud.
Tracking domain related crime is hindered by the millions of domains
registered daily for domain tasting. Unregistered domains likely
to attract errant lookups will not vary greatly from
On 8/14/07, Carl Karsten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That doesn't make anything criminal or fraud any more than free samples. If a
registrar wants to give a refund, I don't see anything wrong with that.
As John Levine once said - its like running a wholesale ketchup
business by picking up all
That doesn't make anything criminal or fraud any more than free
samples. If a
registrar wants to give a refund, I don't see anything wrong with that.
It is certainly fraud to take an entire pile of free samples. Domain tasting
is more like buying a plasma TV to watch the big game and then
Douglas Otis wrote:
On Aug 13, 2007, at 2:01 PM, Carl Karsten wrote:
I am not sure tasting is criminal or fraud.
Tracking domain related crime is hindered by the millions of domains
registered daily for domain tasting. Unregistered domains likely to
attract errant lookups will not vary
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Douglas Otis wrote:
On Aug 13, 2007, at 2:01 PM, Carl Karsten wrote:
I am not sure tasting is criminal or fraud.
Tracking domain related crime is hindered by the millions of domains
registered daily for domain tasting. Unregistered domains likely
to attract
On Aug 14, 2007, at 12:19 AM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I was just struck by a couple of statistics:
[snip]
In January 2007, according to PIR five registrars deleted 1,773,910
domain
names during the grace period and retained 10,862. That same
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, David Schwartz wrote:
That doesn't make anything criminal or fraud any more than free
samples. If a
registrar wants to give a refund, I don't see anything wrong with that.
It is certainly fraud to take an entire pile of free samples. Domain tasting
is more like
73 matches
Mail list logo
