Matthew == Matthew Kaufman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matthew The truth is, it doesn't even need to be a case of grandma
Matthew listed in the whois (though that is a legitimate issue these
Matthew days). If as an ISP, I list Bob's Flower Market (which has
Matthew a DSL line and IP addresses
So list yourself as the contact (but not the network owner) rather
than him.
I see no reason why there should not be some flexibility in the whois
data regarding who is listed as a contact for what purpose, the extent
of information required for listed contacts, etc.
I proposed a revision
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-09-24, at 00.18, Joe Abley wrote:
On 23 Sep 2004, at 18:06, Matt Ghali wrote:
Effectively none.
APNIC has always served out unverified and obvious garbage from their
whois servers.
And they are different from every other RIR in this
Dear colleagues,
This is an important announcement on the implementation of APNIC
approved proposal prop-007-v001 regarding privacy of customer assignment
records. The proposal document, presentation, minutes, and discussion
are available at:
Does anyone else find this as offensive as I do?
matt ghali
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:19:19 +1000, George Michaelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is an important announcement on the implementation of APNIC
approved proposal prop-007-v001 regarding privacy of customer assignment
records. The
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Matt Ghali wrote:
Does anyone else find this as offensive as I do?
matt ghali
I think at this point it becomes a matter of if they're not listed,
blacklist them. It could potentially be a huge filter set, but there's
so much crap coming from that corner of the globe anyway
On Sep 23, 2004, at 4:20 PM, Matt Ghali wrote:
Does anyone else find this as offensive as I do?
Dunno if offensive is the right word. Worrisome, definitely.
Maybe after I have time to understand it better, it might become
offensive.
But that will also depend on how APNIC responds to problems.
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Matt Ghali wrote:
Oh look.
http://rfc-ignorant.org/policy-ipwhois.php
There you go. They do this, they're in violation of RFC 954.
And there's already a blacklist ready and waiting.
-Dan
Does anyone else find this as offensive as I do?
matt ghali
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:19:19
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Yo Matt!
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Matt Ghali wrote:
Does anyone else find this as offensive as I do?
Yes, the spammers are gonna love this.
RGDS
GARY
- ---
Gary E. Miller Rellim
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Matt Ghali wrote:
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:19:19 +1000, George Michaelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is an important announcement on the implementation of APNIC
approved proposal prop-007-v001 regarding privacy of customer assignment
records. The proposal
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
But that will also depend on how APNIC responds to problems. If
Network X has a customer who is a problem, and we can't find out
customer's name / e-mail / whatever, then Network X better be
responsive. If not, then APNIC better be
This proposal would be harmful in tracking hack
attacks, ddos attacks and other forms of annoyance,
spyware tracking and things that are beyond the
capability for any agency to handle because of largese
Technical fiefdoms were one of the worries of the 90's
now we are here and that is becoming
On 23 Sep 2004, at 16:20, Matt Ghali wrote:
Does anyone else find this as offensive as I do?
I guess the answer is yes, but I'm interested to know why.
The proposal (which comes from APNIC members, not from APNIC staff)
concerns non-portable addresses assigned to end-users. I don't know
about
On 23 Sep 2004, at 16:36, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
http://rfc-ignorant.org/policy-ipwhois.php
There you go. They do this, they're in violation of RFC 954.
RFC 954 is a description of how one whois service, running on the
SRI-NIC machine (26.0.0.73 or 10.0.0.51). How can any other whois
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:56:42 -0400, Joe Abley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The proposal (which comes from APNIC members, not from APNIC staff)
concerns non-portable addresses assigned to end-users. I don't know
about anybody else, but I've never had any luck getting a response from
people in
On 23 Sep 2004, at 18:06, Matt Ghali wrote:
Effectively none.
APNIC has always served out unverified and obvious garbage from their
whois servers.
And they are different from every other RIR in this respect how?
Joe
Ok, I'll bite...
I find the idea that an ISP must publish customer information offensive.
There is no reason why a guy who wants to get a T-1 into his house and a /24
to support all the stuff he's doing at home should be forced to publish his
full name and home address to the world (or worse,
In a message written on Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 05:56:42PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
The proposal (which comes from APNIC members, not from APNIC staff)
concerns non-portable addresses assigned to end-users. I don't know
about anybody else, but I've never had any luck getting a response from
The truth is, it doesn't even need to be a case of grandma listed in the
whois (though that is a legitimate issue these days). If as an ISP, I list
Bob's Flower Market (which has a DSL line and IP addresses for every cash
register and order-fulfillment machine) in whois, all that does is:
A)
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 05:56:42PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
The proposal (which comes from APNIC members, not from APNIC staff)
concerns non-portable addresses assigned to end-users. I don't know
about anybody else, but I've
Note that draft-daigle-rfc954bis-01.txt was approved and is
sitting in the RFC Editor's queue. It removes all of the policy
language in RFC 954, but is otherwise the same (and it
will likewise be issued as a Draft Standard, the current
status of RFC 954).
regards,
21 matches
Mail list logo
