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

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

------------=_1561754818-3952-27
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Meaning that instead of maintaining a blacklist of .bit domains free for an=
yone 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 thems=
elves.

--

-Dan Q

On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 16:36:44 -0400, Brian Greer <[email protected]> wr=
ote:

> AV software is free to use Spamhaus efforts, though. It is not mandated b=
y some government authority. That communication happened at all should be s=
een as a positive.=20
>=20
> It is a =E2=80=9Cgreater problem of the tech industry=E2=80=9D that anybo=
dy actively fights against malware? I suggest that allowing malware to run =
rampant would leave us little worth protecting (or using). Again, I ask, wh=
at pro-malware argument can you make? You are trying to wrap this up as a m=
orality argument, but I am definitely not following it.=20
>=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 bl=
acklisting the entirety of OpenNIC. The "blacklist" was not a few suggestio=
ns to the OpenNIC project, but an actively maintained blacklist by company =
representatives.
> >=20
> > Spamhaus sending company representatives to administrative positions in=
 the OpenNIC project is an example of the greater problem of the tech indus=
try 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 u=
s: pay employees to work in partner nonprofits in place of itself.
> >=20
> > If companies would leave morality to the churches and instead focus on =
delivering profits to their shareholders, the world would be a much more pe=
aceful 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 ha=
rm. If it doesn=E2=80=99t cause harm, it isn=E2=80=99t malware. What pro-ma=
lware argument can be made?
> >>=20
> >> Spamhaus provides lists that networks voluntarily use. Presumably ever=
yone could have decided to be blacklisted and accept whatever consequences =
that 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 lear=
ned the Namecoin way and I do it that way now (which is better anyway for m=
any reasons including security).
> >>>=20
> >>> 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.
> >>>=20
> >>> To me it's part of a greater problem - censorship from companies, esp=
ecially in the tech industry, who are more concerned with morality than del=
ivering a packet to its destination and a profit to their shareholders, in =
this case the morality of malware, ransom, and spam rather than the moralit=
y of political causes, politicians, and conspiracy theories.
> >>>=20
> >>> Don't know if anyone missed this question, I asked during the vote, a=
nd 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?
> >>>=20
> >>> --
> >>>=20
> >>> -Dan Q
> >>>=20
> >>>=20
> >>> On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 14:49:45 -0600, Jeff Taylor <[email protected]=
t> 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 serv=
ice=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 anonym=
ous=20
> >>>> nature of .bit domains with absolutely no connection to a real perso=
n,=20
> >>>> coupled with opennic's distribution making it easy to use those doma=
ins,=20
> >>>> there were a number of .bit domains being used to send malware and o=
ther=20
> >>>> questionable content to other people's computers.
> >>>>=20
> >>>> This is where things got ugly...  We've had some long discussions, b=
oth=20
> >>>> here on the mailing list and on IRC chat.  Basically this centers ar=
ound=20
> >>>> the idea that everyone wants opennic to freely resolve everything as=
=20
> >>>> intended without any modifications.  However because of the .bit dom=
ains=20
> >>>> being used to distribute malware they got picked up by Spamhaus and =
the=20
> >>>> mail servers attached to the same IPs as opennic DNS resolvers were =
then=20
> >>>> blacklisted.  We worked with Spamhaus to get a list of the domains t=
hey=20
> >>>> found problems with, and that's when our own blacklist came to be.  =
But=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 hol=
ding=20
> >>>> some of our servers 'hostage' in an effort to force us to bend to th=
eir=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 =
results.
> >>>>=20
> >>>> And so here we are today.  What it came down to was that almost nobo=
dy=20
> >>>> in opennic is actually using .bit domains, so a vote was called to s=
ee=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 did=
n'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 doi=
ng
> >>>>> 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 go=
ing
> >>>>>> 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 Tayl=
or
> >>>>>>> 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]=
roj
> >>>>>> ect.org
> >>>>>>=20
> >>>>>>=20
> >>>>>>=20
> >>>>>> --------
> >>>>>> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
> >>>>>> You may unsubscribe by emailing [email protected]=
roject.org
> >>>>=20
> >>>>=20
> >>>> --------
> >>>> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.=20
> >>>> You may unsubscribe by emailing [email protected]=
ject.org
> >>>=20
> >>>=20
> >>>=20
> >>>=20
> >>> --------
> >>> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.=20
> >>> You may unsubscribe by emailing [email protected]=
ect.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



------------=_1561754818-3952-27
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]

------------=_1561754818-3952-27--