Re: [ga] Privacy and Whois databases

[Peter Veeck <veeck@texoma.net>]

You are located in Canada I believe.  How about getting Canada to legislate some TLDs. Not to let
Washington have all the fun.

Peter Veeck

"J. Baptista" wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Oct 1999, Peter Veeck wrote:
>
> > At the same time you creat a ten fold hit to the ISP's banb width.  So who gets hurt. You
> > haven't bothered the SPAMMer at all.  Probably his return address does not exist so if the
> > domain exists you clog up the mail server's spool file and slow the whole system down.  Thats
> > all right, you can now call the ISP or your friends and complain about the system speed.
>
> No you don't.  If you assign CommercialEmail to an dot.whatever, you then
> block it at the mta.  Easy, transmission denied.  The anti-spam loons have
> proposed some smtp/mta banner message that let's you know weither the site
> accepts or rejects commerical email.  I've looked at the proposal and it's
> nuts.  The ability to do that exists today in the dns and mta.
>
> The anti spammers are trying to reinvent the wheel.  Not necessary, the
> solution exists today, is easy to impliment, will immediately reduce
> traffic, and by default reduce internet costs.
>
> Imagine Peter, if we at PCCF get our way, soon the ITU will announce
> world wide free long distance, all you have to do is listen to a 30
> second commercial announcement.  It's happening already Peter - might as
> well put them in their own domain class.
>
> Regards
> Joe
>
> >
> > Peter Veeck
> >
> > Jeff Williams wrote:
> >
> > > Joe, Peter and all,
> > >
> > >   Lets face some hard facts here.  You are NEVER going to eliminate
> > > spamm entirely.  You will be very lucky if you even are able to reduce
> > > it to any great degree over any period of time.  That will only be
> > > accomplished at the user level, not at the ISP level.
> > >
> > >   I have several what I call "Reverse-Spamming" tools that I have built
> > > as E-Mail bots for my e-mailer that I can turn on or off and selectively
> > > direct to the perp should that be necessary.  What they do is redirect
> > > the spamm message back to the originator and the "Known" DN
> > > admin. address, except they send 10 to 1 back to that spammer
> > > and to the admin. that the DN is assigned if that is known.
> > > This one has worked particularly well with certain members of this
> > > list on occasion, for instance.  >;)  And also with the "KIng of Spamm",
> > > AOL.  It just give them a taste of their own medicine.  >;)  I have found
> > > it extremely effective.  So you can see that no ISP intervention or
> > > WHOIS data is required.  >;)
> > >
> > > J. Baptista wrote:
> > >
> > > > Exactly.  That's the trick - using the dns to separate the good from the
> > > > bad.  We have also proposed a dot.uce, and dot.spam - as a means of
> > > > keeping spam out of the non spam loop.
> > > >
> > > > More and more companies need this sort of service.  As more and more free
> > > > internet services are offered in exchange for adverts, this sort of thing
> > > > will be critical to keeping the spam (or pro uce com-email) people and the
> > > > antispamers separate.  I think both groups are nuts and the sooner that we
> > > > get them on their own separate infrastructure nets, the better.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > Joe Baptista
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 16 Oct 1999, Peter Veeck wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > How about a dot SPAMM TLD And let the SPAMMers use it with impunity.  It could be
> > > > > easily filtered.  Is the only way to get new TLDs to have them legislated?  Can any
> > > > > country legislate new TLDs or must it be done inside the beltway?  Thanks but I don't
> > > > > find them more knowledgeable than ICANN.  Perhaps anything affecting network operation
> > > > > should be turned over to NANOG.
> > > > >
> > > > > Being currently involved in a civil case proceeding through the US Federal court
> > > > > system, I am intimately aware of the costs involved in legal actions. I doubt that you
> > > > > could establish sufficient damages or find deep enough pockets on the other side of the
> > > > > table to warrant prosecution of a SPAMM case through a court of competent
> > > > > jurisdiction..  Perhaps some of the attorneys on this list would offer pro bono
> > > > > services.
> > > > >
> > > > > If someone can show me reliable empirical date that Srikanth's plan would reduce the
> > > > > bandwidth stolen from Internet Texoma by SPAMMers by 10% and the costs to process SPAMM
> > > > > complaints by a like amount I would not only support his plan but would offer to host
> > > > > the database at no cost. Host--but not administer the requests for access.
> > > > >
> > > > > Peter Veeck
> > > > >
> > > > > "J. Baptista" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Peter:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You want a good solution to stopping spam.  Legislate the solution.  One
> > > > > > proposal being submitted to congress is by the dot.mlm people.  It already
> > > > > > has widespread support with admins.  And the same solution offered by the
> > > > > > dot.mlm people also helps parents filter porn.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, for these simple effective solutions to be put in effect the
> > > > > > root-serversd have to be liberated.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > Joe Baptista
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, 16 Oct 1999, Peter Veeck wrote:
> > > > > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > --
> > > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > > Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
> > > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > > E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> > > Contact Number:  972-447-1894
> > > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> >