At 06:36 23/12/98 -0500, you wrote:
>On Wed, Dec 23, 1998 at 08:27:54PM +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>> At 08:17 21/12/98 -0500, you wrote:
>> >FYI: I just noticed new "relay" in one of my spam headers. Its
>> >called PROPAGATION.NET
>>
>> I have passed on the info to the domain policy list at InterNic and asked
>> them what their policy is, when this kind of thing is brought to their
>> attention.
>
>I can tell you what it is: *none whatsoever*. Based on a multi-year
>history, the InterNIC will not intervene in situations like this,
>even if the domain's information is obviously falsified, and even if the
>whole thing is obviously a spam setup. The InterNIC apparently feels
>that spammer's $70 registration fees are as good as anyone elses',
>and continues to allow well-known spammers to register domains.
>
>This is no surprise, of course: two of the major resource problems
>facing the net (IP address space exhaustion, unchecked proliferation
>of domain names in violation of InterNIC's stated one-organization,
>one-domain policy) are also the direct result of InterNIC greed.
>
Rich and all,
Surprisingly I had an immediate reaction from them.
They copied me their traceroute
traceroute to 209.204.205.7 (209.204.205.7), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 ops1-gw1.internic.net (198.41.0.65) 1 ms 1 ms 3 ms
2 opsgw.internic.net (192.168.0.1) 86 ms 93 ms 21 ms
3 inic1-gw.internic.net (198.41.0.1) 101 ms 81 ms 75 ms
4 557.Hssi4-0.GW2.DCA1.ALTER.NET (157.130.32.241) 83 ms 76 ms 110 ms
5 115.ATM2-0.XR1.TCO1.ALTER.NET (146.188.160.34) 75 ms 86 ms 64 ms
6 193.ATM3-0.TR1.DCA1.ALTER.NET (146.188.161.166) 110 ms 136 ms 112 ms
7 101.ATM6-0.TR1.CHI4.ALTER.NET (146.188.136.105) 171 ms 108 ms 110 ms
8 299.ATM7-0.XR1.CHI6.ALTER.NET (146.188.208.253) 113 ms 85 ms 101 ms
9 191.ATM9-0-0.GW2.CHI6.ALTER.NET (146.188.208.185) 74 ms 72 ms 75 ms
10 olm-ds3.axxs.net (157.130.101.114) 114 ms 129 ms 103 ms
11 ns.propagation.net (209.204.205.7) 136 ms 140 ms 134 ms
traceroute to 209.150.129.121 (209.150.129.121), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 ops1-gw1.internic.net (198.41.0.65) 3 ms 1 ms 1 ms
2 opsgw.internic.net (192.168.0.1) 219 ms 113 ms 87 ms
3 inic1-gw.internic.net (198.41.0.1) 51 ms 81 ms 23 ms
4 557.Hssi4-0.GW2.DCA1.ALTER.NET (157.130.32.241) 94 ms 125 ms 200 ms
5 115.ATM2-0.XR1.TCO1.ALTER.NET (146.188.160.34) 228 ms 143 ms 80 ms
6 193.ATM3-0.TR1.DCA1.ALTER.NET (146.188.161.166) 89 ms 106 ms 65 ms
7 101.ATM6-0.TR1.CHI4.ALTER.NET (146.188.136.105) 91 ms 87 ms 106 ms
8 299.ATM7-0.XR1.CHI6.ALTER.NET (146.188.208.253) 144 ms 118 ms 82 ms
9 191.ATM9-0-0.GW2.CHI6.ALTER.NET (146.188.208.185) 165 ms 99 ms 67 ms
10 olm-ds3.axxs.net (157.130.101.114) 119 ms 82 ms 207 ms
11 ns2.propagation.net (209.150.129.121) 163 ms 137 ms 148 ms
They removed the bogus phone number and have queried them about the false
address info, asking them to update the record.
>From a registry, can't really ask for more.
Maybe they are getting sensitive.
Why so many people want .com adresses also has something to do with even
greedier and restrictive national TLD monopolies.
For example: Spain asks 85 dollars for a registration under .es and does
not allow individuals at all.
Joop Teernstra
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.imachination.com
____________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The NEW Web Consultants Association FORUMS and CHAT:
Register Today at: http://just4u.com/forums/
Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants
Give the Gift of Life This Year...
Just4U Stop Smoking Support forum - helping smokers for
over three years-tell a friend: http://just4u.com/forums/
To get 500 Banner Ads for FREE
go to http://www.linkbuddies.com/start.go?id=111261
---------------------------------------------------------------------
