RE: Editorial: ICANN's WHOIS Policy Shift Would Be CriminalN egligence

["Larry Seltzer" <Larry () larryseltzer com>]

Why does whois privacy make domain tasting any more undesirable? Tasting
needs to be stopped in any event. People who engage in it do so with the
active cooperation of the registrars they use (they may be all the same
people in fact) and they're not afraid to have their names exposed. 

Larry Seltzer
eWEEK.com Security Center Editor
http://security.eweek.com/
http://blogs.eweek.com/cheap_hack/
Contributing Editor, PC Magazine
larry.seltzer () ziffdavisenterprise com

-----Original Message-----
From: funsec-bounces () linuxbox org [mailto:funsec-bounces () linuxbox org]
On Behalf Of Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 1:38 PM
To: Paul Ferguson
Cc: funsec () linuxbox org
Subject: Re: [funsec] Editorial: ICANN's WHOIS Policy Shift Would Be
CriminalN egligence

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:26:16 -0000, Paul Ferguson said:

> I agree that ICANN's WHOIS policy shift would be akin to criminal 
> negligence.

What do you think of the concept of "domain tasting with proper whois"?
:)

(Yes, I think domain tasting and this ICANN move regarding whois are
both large crocks of bovine-based fertilizer.  I *could*, in a better
world, support the concept of "special circumstances" as Computerworld
mentioned - except that to make it *useful*, ICANN and the
bottom-feeding registrars would have to collectively grow some
testicles.  Otherwise, every phisher and spammer would file for
"political dissident" status (hey - they disagree with the politics that
passes laws that prohibit their behavior. They're dissidents :)

Except for the few that will claim to be running "Homes for battered
domains" :)

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.