Re: [opennic-discuss] Vote to keep or drop peering with NameCoin

This is a multi-part message in MIME format...

------------=_1561753931-3952-24
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Fusl (I think it was her) told me back then that not allowing Spamhaus to i=
nterfere in our business would result in consumer antivirus software blackl=
isting the entirety of OpenNIC. The "blacklist" was not a few suggestions t=
o the OpenNIC project, but an actively maintained blacklist by company repr=
esentatives.

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 cen=
sorship of political candidates, causes, and conspiracy theories. I was rea=
ding recently that Google does the same thing as what Spamhaus did to us: p=
ay employees to work in partner nonprofits in place of itself.

If companies would leave morality to the churches and instead focus on deli=
vering profits to their shareholders, the world would be a much more peacef=
ul place.

--

-Dan Q


On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 16:00:43 -0400, Brian Greer <[email protected]> wr=
ote:

> By the word=E2=80=99s very definition, malware is intended to cause harm.=
 If it doesn=E2=80=99t cause harm, it isn=E2=80=99t malware. What pro-malwa=
re argument can be made?
>=20
> Spamhaus provides lists that networks voluntarily use. Presumably everyon=
e could have decided to be blacklisted and accept whatever consequences tha=
t entails. Freedom is not a one way street.=20
>=20=20=20
>=20
> > On Jun 27, 2019, at 22:05, Daniel Quintiliani <[email protected]> wrote:
> >=20
> > I was using my own .bit domains frequently via OpenNIC, before I learne=
d the Namecoin way and I do it that way now (which is better anyway for man=
y reasons including security).
> >=20
> > I raised a "who the hell is Spamhaus and why are they telling us what t=
o do" back when that happened, and voted against the optional blacklist. Fu=
sl (I think) told me who Spamhaus were and why they mattered to OpenNIC.
> >=20
> > To me it's part of a greater problem - censorship from companies, espec=
ially in the tech industry, who are more concerned with morality than deliv=
ering a packet to its destination and a profit to their shareholders, in th=
is case the morality of malware, ransom, and spam rather than the morality =
of political causes, politicians, and conspiracy theories.
> >=20
> > 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 w=
ere brought up, aren't we protected by safe harbor laws like CDA 230 and th=
e DMCA, and the equivalent of those in the EU and elsewhere?
> >=20
> > --
> >=20
> > -Dan Q
> >=20
> >=20
> > On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 14:49:45 -0600, Jeff Taylor <[email protected]>=
 wrote:
> >=20
> >> It's actually a little more complex than that.  From what I've been=20
> >> hearing it sounds like some members of Namecoin appreciated the servic=
e=20
> >> while others wanted to remain hidden.  There was also quite a bit of=20
> >> controversy here on Opennic over the subject.  Because of the anonymou=
s=20
> >> nature of .bit domains with absolutely no connection to a real person,=
=20
> >> coupled with opennic's distribution making it easy to use those domain=
s,=20
> >> there were a number of .bit domains being used to send malware and oth=
er=20
> >> questionable content to other people's computers.
> >>=20
> >> This is where things got ugly...  We've had some long discussions, bot=
h=20
> >> here on the mailing list and on IRC chat.  Basically this centers arou=
nd=20
> >> the idea that everyone wants opennic to freely resolve everything as=20
> >> intended without any modifications.  However because of the .bit domai=
ns=20
> >> being used to distribute malware they got picked up by Spamhaus and th=
e=20
> >> mail servers attached to the same IPs as opennic DNS resolvers were th=
en=20
> >> blacklisted.  We worked with Spamhaus to get a list of the domains the=
y=20
> >> found problems with, and that's when our own blacklist came to be.  Bu=
t=20
> >> this goes against the concept of opennic resolving domains without=20
> >> interference.  There was no argument that it should not be Spamhaus's=
=20
> >> place to police the internet, and their methods were essentially holdi=
ng=20
> >> some of our servers 'hostage' in an effort to force us to bend to thei=
r=20
> >> will, but there was a lot of debate about whether or not we *should*.=
=20=20
> >> The only compromise we could come to was that the decision should be=20
> >> left up to the individual T2 operators, with a method of identifying=20
> >> which servers were making use of the blacklist data to modify their re=
sults.
> >>=20
> >> And so here we are today.  What it came down to was that almost nobody=
=20
> >> in opennic is actually using .bit domains, so a vote was called to see=
=20
> >> if it was worth the effort to keep it around.
> >>=20
> >> Hope that faithfully summarizes the history?
> >>=20
> >>=20
> >>=20
> >> 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 .b=
it
> >>> 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.
> >>>=20
> >>>=20
> >>>=20
> >>>=20
> >>> 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 :-)
> >>>>=20
> >>>> Am 25. Juni 2019 17:48:17 MESZ, schrieb [email protected]:
> >>>>> Thanks for the update Jeff.
> >>>>>=20
> >>>>> So only 15 people are active on opennic =F0=9F=98=B2
> >>>>>=20
> >>>>>=20
> >>>>>=20
> >>>>> -----Mensaje original-----
> >>>>> De: [email protected]
> >>>>> <[email protected]> En nombre de Jeff Taylor
> >>>>> Enviado el: martes, 25 de junio de 2019 09:29 a. m.
> >>>>> Para: OpenNIC discussion <[email protected]>
> >>>>> Asunto: Re: [opennic-discuss] Vote to keep or drop peering with
> >>>>> NameCoin
> >>>>>=20
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>>>=20
> >>>>>=20
> >>>>>=20
> >>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> -------
> >>>>>=20
> >>>>>=20
> >>>>>=20
> >>>>> --------
> >>>>> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
> >>>>> You may unsubscribe by emailing
> >>>>> [email protected]
> >>>> --------
> >>>> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
> >>>> You may unsubscribe by emailing [email protected]
> >>>> ect.org
> >>>>=20
> >>>>=20
> >>>>=20
> >>>> --------
> >>>> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
> >>>> You may unsubscribe by emailing [email protected]=
ject.org
> >>=20
> >>=20
> >> --------
> >> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.=20
> >> You may unsubscribe by emailing [email protected]=
ct.org
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > --------
> > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.=20
> > You may unsubscribe by emailing [email protected]=
t.org
>=20
>=20
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.=20
> You may unsubscribe by emailing [email protected].=
org



------------=_1561753931-3952-24
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit



--------
You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
You may unsubscribe by emailing [email protected]

------------=_1561753931-3952-24--