Discuss mailing list

[Jeff Taylor <shdwdrgn AT sourpuss.net>]

You are correct.  I set up the API software and worked with them on how to add and remove entries from the list, but it is a script on Spamhaus' side which generates the .bit listings in the blacklist.  Nobody from Spamhaus is actually taking an active role in opennic operations (as far as I know).

Note that opennic's blacklist code is generalized so we can use it for other purposes as well.  Every entry is tagged to belong to certain group(s), and anyone who wishes to use that info can request a list from the groups they are interested in.  For example, interest has been expressed over the years to have an adult content listing, and this is something that could be produced within the blacklist API.

On 06/28/2019 03:50 PM, Daniel Quintiliani wrote:

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

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