Well, Gabor,... the ego stroking, name calling, "newbie" crap isn't worth replying to... although I will say that I've been on the net for over ten years and BBS's for almost ten years before that.... like I said before, if you want to do name calling, do it with someone else, besides me. I ate breakfast, lunch and dinner for years with the boys that brought you pong, pac man, star trek, the game.... amiga, atari, commodore, kaypro, lisa, apple and mac, at the world's first computer store... in Santa Monica Calif., back in '75.

James Adridge wrote:

...

If people change jobs then it should be possible to perform an inverse query on the changed field in the same way as the admin-c, tech-c, etc. to permit updating of all affected records.

I think active ripe-ops are also unhappy if spammed newbies send them tons of complaining mails. Remember this philosophy:

| For legal reasons, anyone and everyone that is related to an IP Address | or related higher domains or IP routes are included in the anti-spam | message, that way noone can say later, they didn't know or weren't | notified about the law.

Like I said, whether you "like it" or don't is not the point here... the point is, if you don't want historical changes available to the public, secure them. Further, if you don't want people using them for that purpose, then why don't you notify those that do, as they do... in a mature way, instead of resorting to infantile name calling and arrogant condecendence. As was asked before... how many instances have those persons on the Change field, actually received anti-spam messages ? And from how many different original senders ? Many of you may be putting the cart, ahead of the horse. If the anti-spam messages you received, all originated from me, and since I've already stated that email addresses in Change fields will be omitted, then that settles the matter until someone else, newbie or otherwise, uses them again. If Spammers are using the email addresses from those fields, then you have yourself another type of problem which would require action. The way I see it, as one having a quite substantial amount of internet/computer/network experienc, (beyond appearances to some), many of you may be expending great energy to solve a non-problem.

Which of you wants to be "anyone and everyone"? I definitely not. If its in the change field... never mind... its obvious that not everyone has

Read my previous remarks on this. Legal systems affect us all, regardless of our levels of desire or interest to participate or acknowledgement of them.

A new idea: Every "changed" field should contain <president@whitehouse.gov>. So the Secret Service or the FBI will explain politely all of these newbies, that Lenin was right when he said: "To learn, to learn, to learn" (before writing) :-)

More condecendance. No rebuttal merited here... unless one interpreted this as a self-realization of yours ... :) Now, that was truly a harmless joke and not intended as a "put down", however ironic it may happen to be.....

Regards

Gabor

s/James Leonard BRG Customer Service - Belltown Research Group, Seattle, WA USA http://www.speakeasy.org/~belltown SPAM=NET TRAFFIC OVERLOAD=TELECOM $URCHARGE$=GOVT. TAXE$