nanog mailing list archives
Re: HTML email, was Re: Phishing and BGP Blackholing
From: Matthew Black <black () csulb edu>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 07:05:25 -0800
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:38:14 -0600 "Travis H." <travis+ml-nanog () subspacefield org> wrote: [...snip]
The domain name system has enough problems (is mazdausa.com really related to mazda.com?) without involving javascript and ActiveX, but they could be corrected with proper education (how about keeping every URL under one second-level domain related to your company, perhaps companyname.com)
This presupposes that corporations have a more significant claim to domain names than individuals. Does anybody recall the fiasco between ETOY.COM and ETOYS.COM? The former was created by an artist years before the now defunct toy retailer. ETOYS' corporate bullying took away the artist's longstanding domain claiming it might confuse consumers. "Proper education" cannot be achieved ever. Who should have the rights to MCDONALDS.COM or FORD.COM? A large multinational corporation or the entity which set-up an on-line presence first? Assuming here that someone isn't domain squatting or abusing trademarks, for example, FORD's hamburger company advertising automobiles. Trademarks in themselves do not grant domain rights, just exclusive use of a name as a PARTICULAR type of business. That is the real problem. Phishing problems will not be corrected without multinational government coooperation (which I fear for other reasons) because the problems cross teritorial boarders. I received a clever phishing attempt "from" Chase Manhattan Bank directing me to the domain chaserewards.com. This is more a matter of companies informing their customers which domain names are valid. </RANT> matthew black network services california state university, long beach
Current thread:
- Re: Phishing and BGP Blackholing, (continued)
- Re: Phishing and BGP Blackholing Michael . Dillon (Jan 04)
- Re: Phishing and BGP Blackholing Joseph S D Yao (Jan 04)
- Re: Phishing and BGP Blackholing Joseph S D Yao (Jan 04)
- HTML email, was Re: Phishing and BGP Blackholing Travis H. (Jan 17)
- RE: HTML email, was Re: Phishing and BGP Blackholing Joseph Jackson (Jan 17)
- Re: HTML email, was Re: Phishing and BGP Blackholing Joe Abley (Jan 18)
- Re: HTML email, was Re: Phishing and BGP Blackholing Jaap Akkerhuis (Jan 18)
- Re: HTML email, was Re: Phishing and BGP Blackholing Stephane Bortzmeyer (Jan 18)
- RE: HTML email, was Re: Phishing and BGP Blackholing Joseph Jackson (Jan 18)
- Re: HTML email, was Re: Phishing and BGP Blackholing Randy Bush (Jan 18)
- Re: HTML email, was Re: Phishing and BGP Blackholing Matthew Black (Jan 18)
- Re: HTML email, was Re: Phishing and BGP Blackholing Travis H. (Jan 18)
- Re: HTML email, was Re: Phishing and BGP Blackholing Joe Provo (Jan 19)
- Re: Phishing and BGP Blackholing Vassili Tchersky (Jan 02)
- Re: Phishing and BGP Blackholing Stephen Satchell (Jan 02)
- Re: Phishing and BGP Blackholing Bill Nash (Jan 03)
- Re: Phishing and BGP Blackholing Bill Nash (Jan 03)