Discuss mailing list

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

Is that not what happened? To my knowledge this was not a public Spamhaus 
blacklist of bad .bit domains, it was a blacklist that Spamhaus employees 
were maintaining for the OpenNIC project.

--

-Dan Q


On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 14:15:53 -0700, <vv AT cgs.pw> wrote:

> I'm not getting this at all. :(
> 
> ~ Ole
> 
> On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 16:46:54 -0400 (EDT)
> "Daniel Quintiliani" <danq AT runbox.com> wrote:
> 
> > 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  
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
> You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org