Discuss mailing list

[Brian Greer <viridiancube AT gmail.com>]

AV software is free to use Spamhaus efforts, though. It is not mandated by 
some government authority. That communication happened at all should be seen 
as a positive. 

It is a “greater problem of the tech industry” that anybody actively fights 
against malware? I suggest that allowing malware to run rampant would leave 
us little worth protecting (or using). Again, I ask, what pro-malware 
argument can you make? You are trying to wrap this up as a morality argument, 
but I am definitely not following it. 

> On Jun 28, 2019, at 16:32, Daniel Quintiliani <danq AT runbox.com> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
> You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org