More FUD.
Real spammers use opt-in addresses, collected by the companies they are
spamming for. This costs the company no more than collecting snail mail
addresses. Most companies collect these opt-in addresses.
Only radical antispammers collect and abuse addresses via things like
webscanning.
Ok, one last message. This removes some apparent confusion between
reverse DNS abuse and the current Verisign complaints.
The people who have problems with Verisign expect to do a forward lookup
on a domain name, and if they don't get NXDOMAIN, they want to do a
reverse lookup on the address, and
Sorry, this is actually WRONG.
Dean wrote:
These people are upset because now the unregistered .com and .net domains
don't return NXDOMAIN, but give the address of Verisign. The next step in
their test will check the reverse address of Verisign, and find it to
match.
--snip--
nslookup
Dean;
Specifically, you insist that DNS queries, via DNS _protocol_
can be used to check if a domain exists.
No, I never.
Masataka Ohta
Keith;
Your mistake (or, is it intentional?) is to have narrowed the focus
of the discussion that your point is on a minor protocol issue of
an e-mail protocol.
Yes, you should conclude it.
In general, trying to teach things to people with read-only minds is an
exercise in futility.
Exactly.
Dean;
When you get an NXDOMAIN DNS protocol reply, the DNS protocol (RFC 1034,
etc) defines a specific meaning.
Neither rfc1034 nor rfc1035 define NXDOMAIN DNS protocol reply.
But when you don't get NXDOMAIN, there is
no meaning to be implied. This is a fact due to the inclusion of
Vint wrote:
if there is a strong ietf consensus that this practice should be ended,
it would be helpful to find a way to express that, to add to the
expressions from iab and secsac.
There seems to be only one person on this mailing list who does not agree
that the practice is inappropriate.
if you do that, I hope you will edit to manageable and understandable proportions...
:-/
v
At 10:50 PM 9/24/2003 +1000, Laird, James wrote:
Maybe we should put together a summary of the discussion and send it to
ICANN?
Vint Cerf
SVP Technology Strategy
MCI
22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
Dean,
as has happened before, your volume of posting has grown enough to cause
people to complain.
I make your posting volume 27 messages in the last 3 days, comprising 1/3
of the list volume for these days.
Please restrain yourself to a reasonable level - in email, there is no
particular
Goodwins law has been invoked, so seems all points have been made, that
can be made. I have received a number of off-list encouragment messages,
but no off-list hate mail. Unlike many IETF discussions, this one was
rather civil.
I wonder if the complaints you mention are simply meant to suppress
Oops, this wasn't meant for the list. I doubt Harald meant his to go to
the list, either.
My apologies.
--Dean
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Dean Anderson wrote:
Goodwins law has been invoked, so seems all points have been made, that
can be made. I have received a number of off-list
--On 24. september 2003 19:51 -0400 Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Goodwins law has been invoked, so seems all points have been made, that
can be made. I have received a number of off-list encouragment messages,
but no off-list hate mail. Unlike many IETF discussions, this one was
12 matches
Mail list logo
