Discuss mailing list

["Daniel Quintiliani" <danq AT runbox.com>]

Fusl (I think it was her) told me back then that not allowing Spamhaus to 
interfere in our business would result in consumer antivirus software 
blacklisting the entirety of OpenNIC. The "blacklist" was not a few 
suggestions to the OpenNIC project, but an actively maintained blacklist by 
company representatives.

Spamhaus sending company representatives to administrative positions in the 
OpenNIC project is an example of the greater problem of the tech industry 
acting as church rather than company, as we are seeing with the ongoing 
censorship of political candidates, causes, and conspiracy theories. I was 
reading recently that Google does the same thing as what Spamhaus did to us: 
pay employees to work in partner nonprofits in place of itself.

If companies would leave morality to the churches and instead focus on 
delivering profits to their shareholders, the world would be a much more 
peaceful place.

--

-Dan Q


On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 16:00:43 -0400, Brian Greer <viridiancube AT gmail.com> 
wrote:

> By the word’s very definition, malware is intended to cause harm. If it 
> doesn’t cause harm, it isn’t malware. What pro-malware argument can be made?
> 
> Spamhaus provides lists that networks voluntarily use. Presumably everyone 
> could have decided to be blacklisted and accept whatever consequences that 
> entails. Freedom is not a one way street. 
>   
> 
> > On Jun 27, 2019, at 22:05, Daniel Quintiliani <danq AT runbox.com> wrote:
> > 
> > I was using my own .bit domains frequently via OpenNIC, before I learned 
> > the Namecoin way and I do it that way now (which is better anyway for 
> > many reasons including security).
> > 
> > I raised a "who the hell is Spamhaus and why are they telling us what to 
> > do" back when that happened, and voted against the optional blacklist. 
> > Fusl (I think) told me who Spamhaus were and why they mattered to OpenNIC.
> > 
> > To me it's part of a greater problem - censorship from companies, 
> > especially in the tech industry, who are more concerned with morality 
> > than delivering a packet to its destination and a profit to their 
> > shareholders, in this case the morality of malware, ransom, and spam 
> > rather than the morality of political causes, politicians, and conspiracy 
> > theories.
> > 
> > Don't know if anyone missed this question, I asked during the vote, and 
> > nobody answered me, the concerns with child pornography and malware that 
> > were brought up, aren't we protected by safe harbor laws like CDA 230 and 
> > the DMCA, and the equivalent of those in the EU and elsewhere?
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > -Dan Q
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 14:49:45 -0600, Jeff Taylor <shdwdrgn AT sourpuss.net> 
> > wrote:
> > 
> >> It's actually a little more complex than that.  From what I've been 
> >> hearing it sounds like some members of Namecoin appreciated the service 
> >> while others wanted to remain hidden.  There was also quite a bit of 
> >> controversy here on Opennic over the subject.  Because of the anonymous 
> >> nature of .bit domains with absolutely no connection to a real person, 
> >> coupled with opennic's distribution making it easy to use those domains, 
> >> there were a number of .bit domains being used to send malware and other 
> >> questionable content to other people's computers.
> >> 
> >> This is where things got ugly...  We've had some long discussions, both 
> >> here on the mailing list and on IRC chat.  Basically this centers around 
> >> the idea that everyone wants opennic to freely resolve everything as 
> >> intended without any modifications.  However because of the .bit domains 
> >> being used to distribute malware they got picked up by Spamhaus and the 
> >> mail servers attached to the same IPs as opennic DNS resolvers were then 
> >> blacklisted.  We worked with Spamhaus to get a list of the domains they 
> >> found problems with, and that's when our own blacklist came to be.  But 
> >> this goes against the concept of opennic resolving domains without 
> >> interference.  There was no argument that it should not be Spamhaus's 
> >> place to police the internet, and their methods were essentially holding 
> >> some of our servers 'hostage' in an effort to force us to bend to their 
> >> will, but there was a lot of debate about whether or not we *should*.  
> >> The only compromise we could come to was that the decision should be 
> >> left up to the individual T2 operators, with a method of identifying 
> >> which servers were making use of the blacklist data to modify their 
> >> results.
> >> 
> >> And so here we are today.  What it came down to was that almost nobody 
> >> in opennic is actually using .bit domains, so a vote was called to see 
> >> if it was worth the effort to keep it around.
> >> 
> >> Hope that faithfully summarizes the history?
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On 06/27/2019 02:16 AM, 'smee wrote:
> >>> I also read the list but have yet to contribute anything, and I didn't
> >>> vote. This issue and how it came up opened my eyes to a few things. On
> >>> the face of it, it seems obvious. They don't want opennic handling .bit
> >>> domains and it seems to be of no benefit to opennic to continue doing
> >>> so.
> >>> Being not that well versed in the subject, I decided to watch the
> >>> discussion and learn more, but from the discussion, those two facts
> >>> don't seem to have changed.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> On Wed, 2019-06-26 at 22:29 +0200, Al Beano wrote:
> >>>> Like many others, I'm also alive and reading the mailing list but
> >>>> didn't vote - mainly because I'm away from home and things were going
> >>>> in my favour anyway :-)
> >>>> 
> >>>> Am 25. Juni 2019 17:48:17 MESZ, schrieb alejandro AT dnslibre.com.mx:
> >>>>> Thanks for the update Jeff.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> So only 15 people are active on opennic 😲
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> -----Mensaje original-----
> >>>>> De: discuss-request AT lists.opennicproject.org
> >>>>> <discuss-request AT lists.opennicproject.org> En nombre de Jeff Taylor
> >>>>> Enviado el: martes, 25 de junio de 2019 09:29 a. m.
> >>>>> Para: OpenNIC discussion <discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org>
> >>>>> Asunto: Re: [opennic-discuss] Vote to keep or drop peering with
> >>>>> NameCoin
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> With a final vote of 13 to 2, the vote has ended in favor of
> >>>>> dropping
> >>>>> namecoin from opennic.  I will be updating the glue zone today to
> >>>>> remove .bit, and updating the root zone to drop references to
> >>>>> namecoin
> >>>>> and emercoin.  Thanks to everyone who cast their vote.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> -------
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> --------
> >>>>> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
> >>>>> You may unsubscribe by emailing
> >>>>> discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
> >>>> --------
> >>>> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
> >>>> You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproj
> >>>> ect.org
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> --------
> >>>> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
> >>>> You may unsubscribe by emailing 
> >>>> discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
> >> 
> >> 
> >> --------
> >> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
> >> You may unsubscribe by emailing 
> >> discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --------
> > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
> > You may unsubscribe by emailing 
> > discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
> 
> 
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
> You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org