Saturday, December 14, 2002 you wrote:
DJB> We went round and round with UUNet for over a month and a half, giving
DJB> them many opportunities to fix the problem, advising them what would
DJB> happen if they didn't, and they basically said "too bad, we're big,
DJB> deal".
This language pretty much illustrates the issue. It is now a
battle of will between rfc-ignorant and UUNET.
UUNET, in the communication I received, never makes any claim for
special treatment because of size. However, it does seem
reasonable to me at least, that large enterprises with many
transactions have different issues to consider than smaller
organizations with fewer transactions. That seems to me to be
every much as reasonable an interpretation as ignorant's
allegation of UUNET's arrogance.
Furthermore, if the rules, in fact, are going to change then it
does not seem unreasonable to wait before changing an existing
procedure. In fact that seems reasonable regardless of size of
enterprise but especially prudent for a large organization. (and
even more prudent for one whose parent is in bankruptcy)
Missing from the dialogue is any consideration for the "victims."
The issue that brought this up in the first place was that my
class C is listed by rfc-ignorant and they admit there is nothing
I can do about it and that they have taken the action to
"pressure UUNET."
Forgive me for my impertinence, but that seems arrogant to
me. I guess it is a matter of perspective.
DJB> Just wanted to set the record straight.
This appears to be specifically directed at my earlier post. I
neither knowingly lie nor do I purposefully mislead. Further, I
claim no moral superiority whatsoever.
I did offer my opinion in that post that uunet's procedure seemed
"correct". I should have explained that I did not mean "correct"
in the "legal" or "technical" sense but in the practical sense. AS
I further stated I am ignorant myself about the rfc in question.
ignorant may well be correct that UUNET is in violation of the
technical requirement of the rfc. Regardless ignorant has
blacklisted uunet. So practically it is true.
At any rate here are the messages, with extraneous signatures,
headers, and so on removed:
Wednesday, November 20, 2002
My message to rfc-ignorant with copy to uunet:
> I see you have my entire class C (63.99.199.1 thru 63.99.199.255) as
> well as 63.96.0.0/12 which includes it blacklisted. I've read the
> reasoning but frankly I don't understand it except that someone named
> Allen has a problem with UUNET. I really did not know that an e-mail
> address named swipper was required anywhere.
> Even so exactly why am I included in this?
Reply from rfc-ignorant:
> You're not required to, but your ISP, UU.NET has <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> listed in the ARIN contact database as a contact address and it has
> been shown to bounce.
> We're trying to confirm that the address is still broken.
Reply from uunet:
> The email address <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> goes to our IP Allocation
> Team here at WorldCom. I tested this earlier and did not receive
> a bounceback. If you receive a bounceback, please forward the
> message headers so I can follow-up with our mail admins if
> necessary.
Subsequent message from ignorant:
> We've been following up on this as well, we're awaiting a
> confirmation reply to a message we sent to that address (to be sure
> it isn't going to /dev/null). If they reply, we can put the entire
> matter behind us. If they don't reply, then it would appear that
> they ARE solving the problem by bit-bucketing the address, in which
> case the listing would be appropriate.
Subsequent message from uunet:
> Actually, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is specifically set up for replies from ARIN
> when we submit a SWIP request for a particular customer. The original
> SWIP request is sent from a given customer's Install log with a return
> address of [EMAIL PROTECTED], so the auto-reply from ARIN and their
> notification of completion are all tracked in that customer's Install folder.
> As a result, emails sent directly to swipper will probably not attract the
> attention of a live person. Inquiries that require attention should be
> sent to one of the other email addresses provided in ARIN's contact list.
>
> These procedures have been in place for a very long time and there
> is nothing that I would be able to do to change them. If this violates
> your policies or requirements in some way, I hope this explanation is
> sufficient for you to reconsider these listings.
Subsequent message from ignorant:
> bummer. the "Organizational Technical Contact" is not limited in
> scope to just ARIN contacting the organization, it is so any random
> individual on the net who needs to contact the organization (in this
> case, UUNet) can do so.
>
> If it doesn't attract the attention of a live person, we'd have no
> choice but to reinstate the listings, encompassing most of UUNet.
> You might want to reconsider your long-standing-but-very-broken
> policy.
Subsequent message from uunet:
> First, mail sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] used to bounce, but we fixed
> that.
>
> Second, ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-8, which contains the following,
> will fix the swipper problem:
>
> "It is proposed organizations be able to designate certain points of
> contact as private from ARIN WHOIS, with the exception that, at the
> minimum, one point of contact must be viewable."
>
> This policy has been submitted by the ARIN AC to the Board and could
> be ratified as early as next week. When that happens swipper will no
> longer be visible... no swipper, no RFC ignorance because of it.
>
> Please understand that ARIN changed their database, the templates,
> whois output and more in August, and some things were not forseen.
>
>I hope this is sufficient to justify putting these blocks on a "Hold"
>status, at least, until ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-8 is ratified. I am
>going to close this ticket at this time, but please let me know if
>there are any additional questions or concerns. We'll be happy to
>open another ticket to pursue the matter further.
That was last communication I received from ignorant or uunet until
today.
Just one final thought on this regarding ignorant's quote regarding
this e-mail address:
> it is so any random individual on the net who needs to contact the
> organization (in this case, UUNet) can do so.
In light of the issues we face every day with spam this seems to be
a rather impractical rule. I know we recently changed our domain
registration contact and saw an immediate drop in spam. Of course
it is recurring now.
Apologies to all - certainly meant no respect and will mind my posts
from now on.
Terry Fritts
