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

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

------------=_1561754212-3952-26
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

AV software is free to use Spamhaus efforts, though. It is not mandated by =
some government authority. That communication happened at all should be see=
n as a positive.=20

It is a =E2=80=9Cgreater problem of the tech industry=E2=80=9D that anybody=
 actively fights against malware? I suggest that allowing malware to run ra=
mpant 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 mor=
ality argument, but I am definitely not following it.=20

> On Jun 28, 2019, at 16:32, Daniel Quintiliani <[email protected]> wrote:
>=20
> 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 blac=
klisting the entirety of OpenNIC. The "blacklist" was not a few suggestions=
 to the OpenNIC project, but an actively maintained blacklist by company re=
presentatives.
>=20
> Spamhaus sending company representatives to administrative positions in t=
he OpenNIC project is an example of the greater problem of the tech industr=
y acting as church rather than company, as we are seeing with the ongoing c=
ensorship of political candidates, causes, and conspiracy theories. I was r=
eading recently that Google does the same thing as what Spamhaus did to us:=
 pay employees to work in partner nonprofits in place of itself.
>=20
> If companies would leave morality to the churches and instead focus on de=
livering profits to their shareholders, the world would be a much more peac=
eful place.
>=20
> --
>=20
> -Dan Q
>=20
>=20
> On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 16:00:43 -0400, Brian Greer <[email protected]> =
wrote:
>=20
>> 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-malw=
are argument can be made?
>>=20
>> Spamhaus provides lists that networks voluntarily use. Presumably everyo=
ne could have decided to be blacklisted and accept whatever consequences th=
at entails. Freedom is not a one way street.=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
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.=20
> You may unsubscribe by emailing [email protected].=
org


------------=_1561754212-3952-26
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]

------------=_1561754212-3952-26--