nanog mailing list archives
Re: RBL quandry - opinions hereby solicited
From: Mike Reno <mreno () earthlink net>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 14:35:23 -0800
Rodney, ISPs are businesses and have a right to protect their customer database. I don't think JC Penneys would want Sears to be able to grab their customer base and slam them with enticements to switch their alliance. While the sharks are swimming in these waters the ideal world you and I would like to see just simply won't exist. We must choose to either do whatever is necessary to protect our investment or take our chances. As most hosting providers leave the Organization information alone, anyone with a VALID reason to contact the owner of the domain could use snail mail or ask the information operator for the phone number. If the owner of the domain has his/her number unlisted .... guess they want to be left alone. NSI does use snail mail to send out invoices. It's not as if these precautionary steps being taken are resulting in any serious problems that will bring the world to an untimely demise. If the domain owner wants to move his domain, he can FAX an authorization to NSI on the Organization's letterhead. That is a very common practice as domain owners are not in the habit of updating their contact records which results in a failure to approve modifications based on 'Mail From'. Business is business. -=Mike Reno=- Hostmaster, EarthLink Network
No. I think this is an extremely *bad* idea. I don't argue that the issue of spam needs to be dealt with. But the registration of data like email addresses and phone numbers is critical from an operational point of view. These are needed when conatct has to be made because of an operational failure. The purpose of whois data has become corrupt and corrupted over the last couple of years, but we can't lose sight of it. If you can solve the problem of accurate contact data for operational failures, fine. Until then, the data has to be accurate, and useful. Not bogus. /rlj CenterGate Research LLC
Current thread:
- Re: RBL quandry - opinions hereby solicited, (continued)
- Re: RBL quandry - opinions hereby solicited Mike Reno (Nov 16)
- Re: RBL quandry - opinions hereby solicited Steven J. Sobol (Nov 16)
- RE: RBL quandry - opinions hereby solicited Dean Robb (Nov 16)
- Re: RBL quandry - opinions hereby solicited John Fraizer (Nov 16)
- Re: RBL quandry - opinions hereby solicited Dean Anderson (Nov 16)
- Re: RBL quandry - opinions hereby solicited Dean Anderson (Nov 16)
- Re: RBL quandry - opinions hereby solicited Steven J. Sobol (Nov 16)
- Re: RBL quandry - opinions hereby solicited Phil Howard (Nov 17)
- Re: RBL quandry - opinions hereby solicited Jared Mauch (Nov 17)
- Re: RBL quandry - opinions hereby solicited Rich Sena (Nov 21)
- Re: RBL quandry - opinions hereby solicited Mike Reno (Nov 16)
- Re: RBL quandry - opinions hereby solicited Rodney Joffe (Nov 16)
- Re: RBL quandry - opinions hereby solicited John M. Brown (Nov 16)
- Re: RBL quandry - opinions hereby solicited Rodney Joffe (Nov 16)
- Re: RBL quandry - opinions hereby solicited Mike Reno (Nov 17)
- Re: RBL quandry - opinions hereby solicited Dean Anderson (Nov 17)
- Re: RBL quandry - opinions hereby solicited Dorn Hetzel (Nov 19)
- Re: RBL quandry - opinions hereby solicited Dean Anderson (Nov 23)
- WebTV.Net: Censorship Central? Bob Allisat (Nov 23)
- Re: WebTV.Net: Censorship Central? Wayne (Nov 23)
- RE: WebTV.Net: Censorship Central? Rubens Kuhl Jr. (Nov 23)
- Re: WebTV.Net: Censorship Central? Steven J. Sobol (Nov 24)
- WebTV.Net: Censorship Central? Bob Allisat (Nov 23)