[OCCAID] RE: [SPAM] Occaid Digest, Vol 19, Issue 10

[Cook, Timothy C.]

Message: 5
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 02:34:45 -0500
From: "Scott J. Clifford" <clifford at cnacs.occaid.org>
Subject: Re: [OCCAID] Proposal for EINTAP
To: Tristan Santore <titan at titaniumz.com>
Cc: occaid <occaid at cnacs.occaid.org>
Message-ID: <20050108073445.GA81606 at scylla.towardex.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 06:55:53AM +0000, Tristan Santore wrote:
> >
> Hi everybody,
> 
> ater doing some testing with spamcalc I must strongly say that I fully 
> agree with Miles oppinion on that issue. I do use a longer hostname 
> myself...and yes i do use it on irc, which is prolly the main reason why 
> people use hostnames like e.g. my.oppinion.is.me.uk could be one. Which 
> is classed as dns spam. Saying that though i do not use ridiculous dns 
> names. But in my oppinion I dont see how people would be bothered by a 
> longer than usual dns name. I mean you would not see that dns name 
> unless u were looking at peoples hostmasks. Also I dont see that the 
> overhead would be that much higher, but please correct me if I am wrong. 
> Its a bit odd how it decides on if something is dns spam or not anyway.
> 
> Only a short while ago governments in Europe were discussing (still are) 
> if isp's should keep logs of peoples surfing habits, so that these could 
> be used for criminal investigations etc.
> 
> Lets ask ourselves, if we start to regulate the internet in certain 
> ways, wont we destroy the whole idea of it ? People are not causing a 
> nuisance really by using a longer dns name. People who exploit ipv6 and 
> their tunnel for DOS attacks or other malicious activity deserve to be 
> disciplined, because they are actively causing a nuisance and more work 
> for others.
> 
> You are missing a point though. There is a difference between transit
> traffic and what goes on an address space that represents OCCAID project
> in front of the public.
> You can feel free to host porn and dirty stuff through our network so
> long as you keep such services out of our address space. Feel free to
> get a /48 from BTExact, HE or whomever, run disgusting stuff and send
> bits to OCCAID for all we care. well of course, we will act if there
> is illegal traffic flowing since that's requirement by the law.
> 
> But if you were to do the same out of address space that represents
> OCCAID, it makes us nothing but look like bunch of children. OCCAID
> is also planning to register as a 501(c)3 non profit corporation
> this year sometime. How do you think we can expect companies and
> businesses to continue to donate to the project when there are
> bunch of seven year olds comparing how much longer they can piss
> using address space which represents us in the public?
> 
> Oh don't get me wrong, I agree to your points. I hate internet
> censorship myself. But do note the difference between 
> guilty-by-association versus transit traffic. 
> 
> 
> Scott.
> 
> ------------------------------


I would first like to point out that at this time I haven't even set up any
rdns so however this turns out really has no affect on me at all.  So I
guess I feel like I can approach this with at least a semi-impartial
opinion.  That being said, I think that this reasoning is bs.

How many donating corporations sit on IRC all day and dns, then trace the
source of the IP block of any person they see with a hostname they dislike?
I really really really don't think that's going to be a reason for anyone
who would normally donate not to.  And if it is I think they need a nice
reality check if they base occaid solely on some of it's end users.  Are you
going to not donate to tsunami victims in asia because some of the people
handing out aid are known terrorists?  To be quite honest, I don't think
annoying hostnames represent "kiddies" being on the network period.  I
*REALLY* hope that any donating member wouldn't pull their donations because
of what a few of the end users of the project are doing with their address
space.  If it's not hurting the network, who cares?  I would think they'd be
more inclined to pull funding knowing that you were putting restrictions on
it's use which in my mind makes it less of an "educational" network.
There's already a policy in place that removes any user who's taking
extensive DOS attacks... I think that in and of itself solves the entire
problem of it becoming a "kiddie" network.

  I can whois and paste you a dozen different "kiddies" on IRC right now who
would all fly well below spamcalc, which is just one more reason I think
that the reasoning of this preventing "kiddies" from joining up is BS.  And
in all reality, any "kiddie" who would use some rediculously long and
annoying hostname probably wouldn't know the fist thing about setting up
BIND anyways, so it doesn't really matter.

Spamcalc in and of itself is flawed, hell, one of the occaid bots scores a
73... "jeeps.are.wacky.ws".  Regardless, I really don't see any benefit to
the project, and I *REALLY* don't see it keeping kiddies out.  Sounds like
someone's personal vendetta more than anything to me because that reasoning
just doesn't hold water.  Anyways, just adding my 2c, and as I said, it
really doesn't affect me one way or the other.  Hopefully I didn't make
anyone too upset :)  Keep up the good work guys.  Hopefully I have my
thoughts collected into an understandable format as I'm kind of in a hurry.

Tim
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 5580 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.twdx.net/pipermail/occaid/attachments/20050108/11e5134c/attachment-0001.bin