OK, enough is enough. We've all had a spammer or spam site sign up,
and we've all (presumably) kicked them off. Why are you referencing
data from some spam posting over 4 years old?
Because, as I showed you, Elan is still hosting their domains.
Lets be clear about something -
Without comment on any other issue,
hat = registrar
Another item of note is the phone number in ELAN.NET domain registration
is invalid. William is in breach of his registration agreement, and
liable to lose his domain name unless he corrects this.
I don't know of a registrar who cares
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine writes on 11/4/2003 7:51 AM:
I don't know of a registrar who cares above nominally about the correctness
of whois:43 data. Billing data is another matter. The author of the para
above is ... should breath into a paper bag for a few minutes until the
Suresh Ramasubramanian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I believe at least one antispam service - spamcop.net - had its domain
pulled by joker.com, ostensibly for invalid whois data. This seems
to be fixed now.
http://www.julianhaight.com/jokerstupidity.shtml
Again, without comment on any other issue ...
hat = registrar
Siegfried Langenbach's execution of some registrar-basics causes many
registrars puzzlement and/or concern. I don't know of any registrants
who actually transfered successfully _from_ joker/csl to a compeating
registrar, but I do
]; Booth, Michael (ENG);
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Harassment (was Re: ELAN.NET ...)
Again, without comment on any other issue ...
hat = registrar
Siegfried Langenbach's execution of some registrar-basics
causes many registrars puzzlement and/or concern. I don't
know of any
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine) [Tue 04 Nov 2003, 15:26
CET]:
hat = registrar
Siegfried Langenbach's execution of some registrar-basics causes many
registrars puzzlement and/or concern. I don't know of any registrants
who actually transfered successfully
Scott Call wrote:
The ethics and/or legality of registering
nanog.us notwithstanding,
That's what we are talking about, I think. There is value in a name; for
example, Neustar (nic.us) has reserved whitehouse.us (see whois below).
I would not have been too worried about some jerk trying to
This one is my fault. I put in-addr.arpa on the protected list, and didn't
think about operational non-dns infrastructure.
I can't tell you who to talk to over at NS, but since you all have latest
bind, and are cluefull on the VGRS wildcard hack, you all can limit the
effect that the nanog has
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote:
[Regarding somebody's registration of nanog.us]
I can't tell you who to talk to over at NS, but since you all have latest
bind, and are cluefull on the VGRS wildcard hack, you all can limit the
effect that the nanog has in
Well, I understand that this _appears_ to be a marks issue.
However, the operator (NS) is allowed under the regulatory
agreement (quasi-ICANN gTLD contract) to create a reserved
words list, as is the regulator, independent of any other
theory of right.
in-addr.arpa sure isn't copyrighted.
When
Steve Gibbard writes on 11/3/2003 1:08 PM:
Uh... This appears to be a potential trademark law issue, except that I'm
not aware of Merit or anybody else ever claiming NANOG as a trademark.
Presumably, if this becomes a problem (somebody advertising alternate
NANOG conferences, for example),
Adding to the indictment, the postings are listed as circa 9 am EST,
but didn't show up until 3 pm EST, and are coming from a machine that
claims to be NANOG.us (with missing inverses). Not a good sign:
Received: from ns2.nanog.us (unknown [69.60.142.242])
by segue.merit.edu
OK, enough is enough. We've all had a spammer or spam site sign up,
and we've all (presumably) kicked them off. Why are you referencing
data from some spam posting over 4 years old?
Because, as I showed you, Elan is still hosting their domains.
If William would take some action and clean
On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 15:32:57 -0500
William Allen Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| I've reviewed all the postings from this Michael (ENG) Booth,
| and found none that add to the knowledge of this group.
The only relevance of those postings to this group can be found by
observing exactly how
There has been more operational and useful discussion on #nanog
today than on NANOG-L. Something is wrong with this picture.
Eddy
--
Brotsman Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building
Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and
Richard Cox wrote:
The only relevance of those postings to this group can be
found by observing exactly how the MX (69.60.142.242) for
his email address ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) answers on
Port 25. Most interesting!
Indeed. Would be worth taking action with nic.us.
Michel.
I should know better than to stick my foot into things, but the IP in
question (69.60.142.242) is registered with the .US registrar as
ns2.nanog.us, and is the secondary name server for nanog.us
The ethics and/or legality of registering nanog.us notwithstanding, I
don't understand this
18 matches
Mail list logo
