Re: Verisign's land grab - TCP-IP

This is a discussion on Re: Verisign's land grab - TCP-IP ; JdeBP> BSB> Why don't you just tell VeriSign that you don't agree to the BSB> terms of use at http://sitefinder.verisign.com/terms.jsp? Because that doesn't do anything towards achieving the desired goal, which is the removal of the wildcards by Verisign. It ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Re: Verisign's land grab

  1. Re: Verisign's land grab

    JdeBP>

    BSB> Why don't you just tell VeriSign that you don't agree to the
    BSB> terms of use at http://sitefinder.verisign.com/terms.jsp?

    Because that doesn't do anything towards achieving the desired goal,
    which is the removal of the wildcards by Verisign. It may affect
    the degree of IP connectivity between onesself and Verisign. But
    IP connectivity isn't the problem. What is being published in the
    public DNS database is the problem.

  2. Re: Verisign's land grab

    JdeBP> Because that doesn't do anything towards achieving the desired
    JdeBP> goal, which is the removal of the wildcards by Verisign. It
    JdeBP> may affect the degree of IP connectivity between onesself and
    JdeBP> Verisign. But IP connectivity isn't the problem. What is
    JdeBP> being published in the public DNS database is the problem.

    BSB> I'm just saying that we need to hit this from all sides.
    BSB> VeriSign got sued last week, [...]

    An action is only part of "hitting it from all sides" if its outcome will be
    the same as that of other actions. Your suggestion doesn't do anything
    towards the goal of having Verisign remove the wildcards. The lawsuits,
    however, do. That is even their explicit goal.

    BSB> I'm also considering all spam coming from domains that were
    BSB> previously dropped because of no MX or A records to
    BSB> abuse@verisign.com, an RFC required e-mail address.

    What are you considering about that spam ?

  3. Re: Verisign's land grab

    AF>
    AF>
    AF> Verisign's reply of a blatant "NO" with their own excuse of
    AF> "let's see what happens" attitude [...]

    .... accompanied by an offer to "do lunch" with some ICANN executives. (-:

  4. Re: Verisign's land grab

    BSB> When some jerk@asdfasdfadfjakdfjasdl.com sends spam to us and
    BSB> it reverses to 64.94.110.11 why shouldn't we bounce it to them?

    Who is "them" ? It isn't . That
    mailbox, after all, doesn't exist. It isn't Verisign, either.
    Verisign is not the SMTP Relay client that is sending the mail to
    you.

    There's nowhere that bounce messages for
    can be sent to, and Verisign, by
    its assertion that all subdomains of "com." now exist, has broken
    your MTS's previous ability to detect this. Complain to Verisign,
    loudly and long. Tell it to pay for the increased bandwidth and
    disc space costs that it has caused you to incur by its action.



    BSB> Perhaps if they got a few million bounced spams they'd
    BSB> understand what they've done to many UBE filters,
    BSB> as your own page points out.

    The web page also points out, in the item immediately preceding
    that one, that Verisign's SMTP Relay server at 64.94.110.11 won't
    accept any messages, bounce or other.

+ Reply to Thread