Discuss mailing list

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

Meaning that instead of maintaining a blacklist of .bit domains free for 
anyone to use, they sent people into the OpenNIC project to have a management 
role in the servers and made something specific for OpenNIC, not for 
themselves.

--

-Dan Q

On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 16:36:44 -0400, Brian Greer <viridiancube AT gmail.com> 
wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
> You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org