Dns-operations mailing list

[Guillaume Parent <gparent AT gparent.org>]

I thought it was rather obvious in my message: "Since people ignore clear warnings, they should not appear on the nearest servers at all, only on the T2 list."

AKA: I think it is error-prone for our less technical users and that it would project a poor image of OpenNIC to show servers that could maybe not work unless you add your IP on a list.

The point is not to punish people who wish to protect their servers, but to not confuse users who are sometimes already so technically challenged that they have no idea what to do with the IP in the first place. I think providing a list of servers that may or may not work is not in the interest of our users. We got publicity recently from the NSA backlash and Joe Sixpack sometimes gets into privacy and visits us. Any step we can remove in-between "I want privacy" or "I want my own TLD" or <insert opennic goal here> to "I'm using OpenNIC", we should remove from the nearest servers list. If I'm in the US and have a choice between a few servers on East/West coast, you better be showing me the ones I can always use without querying an API.

As for the T2 list prioritizing:

We should be promoting the servers that can answer queries regardless of a "whitelisted" status as a matter of common sense: they can do the same work as the private servers and even more since they have no IP restriction in place.

Servers using the OpenNIC whitelisting should, of course, remain on the Tier 2 server list, since the point of that list is to promote a service and the general public may not mind having to register and whitelist their IPs to use OpenNIC. We obviously shouldn't hide them.

>inb4 upcoming discussion, technology democracy implies that the most
>widespread implementation is considered the norm. So if you really
>want servers removed from a listing or moved to a separate listing, be
>prepared for non-whitelisting servers to be treated the same way if a
>whitelist system ever becomes said norm.

We should promote the most capable servers, not the ones that win a popularity contest at having a specific configuration. Following what I believe is a similar logic, should we promote the servers that log queries if they are the most popular? Makes absolutely no sense to me. That being said, if whitelisted servers are Teh New Thing, I just think we should use sorting arrows to list completely public ones first in order to alleviate the Joe Sixpack problem mentioned earlier.

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Julian DeMarchi <julian AT jdcomputers.com.au> wrote:

On 02/11/2014 11:05 AM, Guillaume Parent wrote:
> I totally agree with this. Since people ignore clear warnings, they should
> not appear on the nearest servers at all, only on the T2 list.
>
> Additionally, private servers using whitelisting should be at the bottom of
> said list in a separate section.

Why should they be listed as private servers? I see a theme here of
punishing users who wish to "protect" their servers from being abused
and by-and-large be a good net citizen by taking messures to stop their
servers joining in a DDOS.

We should be promoting the whitelsited servers and clearly and obviously
stating how to get added to the whitelist.

With the work Jeff has done the process to add an IP is relatively easy
and it DOES accomodate dynamic IPs.

So again, can you please tell me why they should be hidden from the
nearest server listing?

--julian

----
To unsubscribe, email dns-operations-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org