Re: [opennic-discuss] Vote to keep or drop peering with NameCoin
Jeff Taylor <[email protected]> Fri, 28 Jun 2019 16:01:02 -0600
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.opennic.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format... ------------=_1561759271-3952-31 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------513233DA3DDE001BEAE926A2" Content-Language: en-US This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------513233DA3DDE001BEAE926A2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'm not getting this at all. :( >> >> ~ Ole >> >> On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 16:46:54 -0400 (EDT) >> "Daniel Quintiliani" <[email protected]> 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 >>> <[email protected]> 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 >>>>> <[email protected]> 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 >>>>> <[email protected]> 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 >>>>>>> <[email protected]> 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 >>>>>>> <[email protected]> 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 >>>>>>>>>> [email protected]: >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the update Jeff. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So only 15 people are active on opennic 😲 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -----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 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> -------- >>>>>>>>>> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. >>>>>>>>>> You may unsubscribe by emailing >>>>>>>>>> [email protected] ect.org >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -------- >>>>>>>>>> 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] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -------- >>>>>>> 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] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -------- >>>>> 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] >>> >> >> -------- >> 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] --------------513233DA3DDE001BEAE926A2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> </head> <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> 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).<br> <br> 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.<br> <br> <br> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 06/28/2019 03:50 PM, Daniel Quintiliani wrote:<br> </div> <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:[email protected]"> <pre wrap="">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, <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email protected]"><[email protected]></a> wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">I'm not getting this at all. :( ~ Ole On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 16:46:54 -0400 (EDT) "Daniel Quintiliani" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email protected]"><[email protected]></a> wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">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 <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email protected]"><[email protected]></a> wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">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. </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">On Jun 28, 2019, at 16:32, Daniel Quintiliani <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email protected]"><[email protected]></a> 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 <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email protected]"><[email protected]></a> wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">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. </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">On Jun 27, 2019, at 22:05, Daniel Quintiliani <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email protected]"><[email protected]></a> 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 <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email protected]"><[email protected]></a> wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">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: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">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: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">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 <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Thanks for the update Jeff. So only 15 people are active on opennic 😲 -----Mensaje original----- De: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email protected]"><[email protected]></a> En nombre de Jeff Taylor Enviado el: martes, 25 de junio de 2019 09:29 a. m. Para: OpenNIC discussion <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email protected]"><[email protected]></a> 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 <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">-------- You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. You may unsubscribe by emailing <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> ect.org -------- You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. You may unsubscribe by emailing <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> </pre> </blockquote> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> -------- You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. You may unsubscribe by emailing <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> -------- You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. You may unsubscribe by emailing <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> -------- You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. You may unsubscribe by emailing <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> -------- You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. You may unsubscribe by emailing <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> -------- You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. You may unsubscribe by emailing <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> -------- You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. You may unsubscribe by emailing <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> </pre> <!--'"--><br> <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset> <br> <pre wrap=""> -------- You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. You may unsubscribe by emailing <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> </pre> </blockquote> <br> </body> </html> --------------513233DA3DDE001BEAE926A2-- ------------=_1561759271-3952-31 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] ------------=_1561759271-3952-31--