On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> re
> > No, this is not correct. ICANN policy lets registrars offer opt-out
> > to the bulk $10,000/yr whois database access system, but not the
> > public whois.
>
> So, opensrs kids, how 'bout implementing an opt in requirement for the lists
> you may or may not be selling. it's a beginning.
> Why does Icann even allow the sale of lists? Haven't they heard of this
> phenomena called , uh, i forget, yeah, Spam.
I remember Ross mentioning the idea of an opt-in solution some time in the
past, though I dont know where this stands! ( after all I am but a tech
support pee on for OpenSRS and not privy to the info of the higher ups ;)
But I think the one thing you dont see is that for the most part it is not
the selling of the bulk whois data, it is the mining of the WHOIS
database. Remember OEM mail, they would email folks within a week of
registering a domain with:
"Weve noticed that u registered xxxxxx.com.
Wouldnt it be great if you could have [EMAIL PROTECTED] so on and
so on.... "
Do u think they bought the WHOIS data from NSI, OpenSRS, Rcom. Doubt it!
Why? When you can get the daily zone dumps, parse thru them and then mine
the WHOIS databases. I highly doubt spammers will pay the $10000 for all
that data, from each registrar ( thats a lot of loot man :)
It seems the more strict mail server settings get, the more creative
spammers get!
I think what is needed is something where the domain owners have the
ability to opt out of there info being in WHOIS ( but the registrar would
still keep the proper data internally ). And things such as Mark's
myprivacy.ca need to become more widespread and NEED to be promoted or
endorsed by the registrars.
Turth of the matter is, I dont know how to solve spam its Friday and its
been a long week and I am bitchy and feel like ranting right now, so I
did. Thanks.
erol M
tired and cranky.
Genie's privacy idea is interesting. Perhaps Icann should consider changing
> their policy to allow Genie's idea to manifest.
>
> What is the downside of this kind of privacy that Genie is suggesting, if
> any at all?
> The upside is obvious.
>
> Swerve
>
>
>
> > From: William X Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Reply-To: William X Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 16:56:56 -0700
> > To: "genie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: ANTISPAM BATTLE PLAN (Was Bizland spam)
> >
> > Friday, Friday, August 31, 2001, 4:27:54 PM, genie wrote:
> >
> >>> Unfortunately, according to ICANN mandate, all the information has to be
> >>> correct and verifiable - or you may lose the domain for compliance
> >> reasons.
> >>> Sad, but true.
> >
> >> BUT I think I have heard somewhere on this list that ICANN permits
> >> Registrar
> >> to conceal customer's info, based on customer's preference. Then the
> >> Registrar would disclose it based on request (WHICH WOULD ELIMINATE
> >> 99% of domain related SPAM, since a spammer would find it too costly to
> >> retrieve
> >> customer's data one by one request per domain)
> >
> > No, this is not correct. ICANN policy lets registrars offer opt-out
> > to the bulk $10,000/yr whois database access system, but not the
> > public whois.
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > William X Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Userfriendly.com Domains
> >
> >
>
---------------------------------------
-erol
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
