So my view of it is the same as current practice and laws (at least in
US)
which require business (including DBA) registrations in county/state
registrar and requirying and making public corporate records, including
address of the company and list of its officers.
Interesting how many
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Interesting how many companies are parked at a lawyers office,
i.e. the official address of the company is that of it's legal
firm. One wonders why an abuse organization would not use this same
tactic and register a legal firm as the administrative contact.
How
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The network itself is the primary contact information
for a domain. Every nameserver has an IP address
whose connectivity can be tracked through the network.
Same thing for mail servers and anything else with
an A record. This means that operationally it is
far more
william(at)elan.net wrote:
It matters if we're talking about Tom, John or Susan working for some
commercial company and contacting me as part of the activity of that
entity, in that case I'd like to know about the domain and don't want
to see its whois data hidden.
I find it somewhat amusing
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, Janet Sullivan wrote:
william(at)elan.net wrote:
It matters if we're talking about Tom, John or Susan working for some
commercial company and contacting me as part of the activity of that
entity, in that case I'd like to know about the domain and don't want
to
--On 11 December 2004 12:07 -0500 Rich Kulawiec [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't want to turn this into a domain policy discussion,
Ditto. I'd add one thing though: allowing anonymous registration is not
necessarily the same thing as allowing all details of registration to be
publicly queryable
I'm going to try to keep this short, hence it's incomplete/choppy. Maybe
we should take it to off-list mail with those interested.
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 10:06:10PM -0700, Janet Sullivan wrote:
Great! So, if you are a vulnerable minority, don't use the internet.
I said precisely the
Rich,
registrar_hat_current=on
epp_coauthor_hat=on
registry_hat_expired=on
You have an opinion, but I'm unable to detect a basis for that
opinion.
Allocations of string-space do not give rise to control over any
resource other than (conditionally) the
Rich Kulawiec wrote:
And the other side of it is: I don't think an Internet with anonymous people
controlling operational resources is workable.
OK, how many anonymous domains (ala domainsbyproxy) have you been unable
to contact?
I *never* attempt to contact the owners of a domain which
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, Janet Sullivan wrote:
I'm confused. You never try to contact the owners of a domain which
appears to be the source of abuse, but insist that domains can't be
anonymous?
All rhetoric aside, this appears to be a question of what it means to have
a domain.
Once upon a
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004, Janet Sullivan wrote:
Rich Kulawiec wrote:
1. Anyone controlling an operational resource (such as a domain) can't
be anonymous. This _in no way_ prevents anyone from doing things
anonymously on the Internet: it just means that they can't control an
operational
I don't want to turn this into a domain policy discussion, but
here are a few comments (in some semblance of order) which relate
to the operational aspects.
1. Anyone controlling an operational resource (such as a domain) can't
be anonymous. This _in no way_ prevents anyone from doing things
Rich Kulawiec wrote:
1. Anyone controlling an operational resource (such as a domain) can't
be anonymous. This _in no way_ prevents anyone from doing things
anonymously on the Internet: it just means that they can't control an
operational resource, because that way lies madness.
As long as that
william(at)elan.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Read NANOG archives - Verisign now allows immediate (well, within
about 10 minutes) updates of .com/.net zones (also same for .biz)
while whois data is still updated once or twice a day. That means if
spammer registers new domain he'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Corlett) wrote:
william(at)elan.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Read NANOG archives - Verisign now allows immediate (well, within
about 10 minutes) updates of .com/.net zones (also same for .biz)
while whois data is still updated once or twice a day. That
Captain's Log, stardate Thu, 09 Dec 2004 15:10:14 -0500, from the fingers of
Daniel Senie came the words:
snip
We have clients complaining about the junk email, junk faxes and
junk postal mail that results from these listings.
snip
I agree,
Even the .ie domain registry doesn't add personal
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004, Elmar K. Bins wrote:
william(at)elan.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Read NANOG archives - Verisign now allows immediate (well, within
about 10 minutes) updates of .com/.net zones (also same for .biz)
while whois data is still updated once or twice a day.
Elmar K. Bins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Corlett) wrote:
[...]
This tempts me to hack something into Exim that does a whois on
previously-unseen sender domains, and give a deferral if the whois
denies existence of the domain. Is this likely to have any
meaningful
Peter Corlett wrote:
There's some awful tinpot domain registrars out there where you have
to wonder if their whois server is on the end of a dialup link, but
fortunately I'm not attempting to access those. Connectivity from here
to the CRSNIC server is good and no worse than to any other server I
In an earlier episode I pointed out to the list-resident VGRS person that
the dynamic properties introduced for one marketing purpose would have a
consequence in another problem domain, but no point revisiting that issue.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Corlett) wrote:
There's some awful tinpot
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004, kent crispin wrote:
I disagree, I think this may be ok, but its specifically because its
for .com/.net whois (not ok for general TLD). Reasons are:
1. Internic.net / CRSNIC whois has no limit set on number of queries
client from particular ip can make before
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, Mike Tancsa wrote:
While doing a quick sample of my spam to see where spamvertized web sites
were hosted and registered, I came across the domain vestigial3had.com
shell1% whois vestigial3had.com
...
No match for VESTIGIAL3HAD.COM.
What gives ? How can their be no
At 11:17 AM 09/12/2004, william(at)elan.net wrote:
Read NANOG archives - Verisign now allows immediate (well, within about 10
minutes) updates of .com/.net zones (also same for .biz)
Yes, I was aware of that.
while whois data
is still updated once or twice a day.
I (wrongly) assumed that the
At 01:50 PM 09/12/2004, Jeff Rosowski wrote:
shell1% whois vestigial3had.com
...
No match for VESTIGIAL3HAD.COM.
What gives ? How can there be no whois info anywhere ?
You can also make whois information private, usually for an additional fee.
I wonder what % of domains that have their whois info
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 2:33 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: no whois info ?
At 01:50 PM 09/12/2004, Jeff Rosowski wrote:
shell1% whois vestigial3had.com
...
No match for VESTIGIAL3HAD.COM
At 02:44 PM 09/12/2004, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
Perhaps 100% of spammers hide their registration data when possible,
but I wouldn't say that 100% of hidden registrations are spammers.
An RBL option of this type of data would probably mean forced
elimination of a benefit to the public - privacy.
At 02:33 PM 12/9/2004, Mike Tancsa wrote:
At 01:50 PM 09/12/2004, Jeff Rosowski wrote:
shell1% whois vestigial3had.com
...
No match for VESTIGIAL3HAD.COM.
What gives ? How can there be no whois info anywhere ?
You can also make whois information private, usually for an additional fee.
I wonder
-Original Message-
From: Mike Tancsa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 3:00 PM
To: Hannigan, Martin; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: no whois info ?
At 02:44 PM 09/12/2004, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
[SNIP]
There has to be a balance between expectations
At 03:10 PM 09/12/2004, Daniel Senie wrote:
The WHOIS data is there to ensure there's someone to contact. As long as
the data listed can be used to reach the domain holder for legitimate
purposes (technical problems, etc.), why should you care if the listed
address is a Care Of address, the
Jeff Rosowski wrote:
shell1% whois vestigial3had.com
...
No match for VESTIGIAL3HAD.COM.
What gives ? How can their be no whois info anywhere ?
How about the following... (note that just because someone is using
someone as their authoritative name server doesn't mean that the other
people (in
Hi!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ dig ns vestigial3had.com
snip
;; ANSWER SECTION:
vestigial3had.com. 172800 IN NS ns1.kronuna.biz.
vestigial3had.com. 172800 IN NS ns2.kronuna.biz.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ whois kronuna.biz
[Querying whois.neulevel.biz]
[whois.neulevel.biz]
At 07:49 PM 09/12/2004, Peter John Hill wrote:
Jeff Rosowski wrote:
shell1% whois vestigial3had.com
...
No match for VESTIGIAL3HAD.COM.
What gives ? How can their be no whois info anywhere ?
How about the following... (note that just because someone is using
someone as their authoritative name
More fun...
Mike Tancsa wrote:
1M IN MX10 www
1M IN A 200.124.75.12
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ whois 200.124.75.12
inetnum: 200.124.64/19
responsible: GoldToe International Inc.
address: 60 Market Square, 0, 0
address: 0 -
I wonder what % of domains that have their whois info hidden or
private are throwaway spam domains... Some number approaching 100% I
would bet. It would be nice to somehow incorporate this into a
SpamAssassin check somehow.
Please don't, there are legitimate reasons to have private domain
At 10:32 PM 09/12/2004, Janet Sullivan wrote:
I wonder what % of domains that have their whois info hidden or private
are throwaway spam domains... Some number approaching 100% I would
bet. It would be nice to somehow incorporate this into a SpamAssassin
check somehow.
Please don't, there are
35 matches
Mail list logo
