Re: [ga] Privacy and Whois databases

["J. Baptista" <baptista@pccf.net>]

Come on Peter.  Canadian politicians are about the same as US politicians.
They won't go anywhere near this.  In fact I think the canadian government
has made it clear - it's not their business.  And rightly so.

It's our business to find solutions.  In case you have not noticed, we
live on a dead planet.  Things are not looking very fine in the US nor
Canada.  In fact that's why PCCF has been spreading it's network
infrastructure around.

I think it's tyime the human race started to use the tools available to
take over the goverment process.  Politicians have screwed up, I'm sure
the MAPS RBL and it's proposed policing tactics can't be any worse.

Regards
Joe Baptista

Now I ask you, is it not time 

On Sun, 17 Oct 1999, Peter Veeck wrote:

> 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
> > >
>