Re: "changed" field should be deleted
There is a general problem with publicly available email contact information. I would prefer to solve the general problem.
I'd say that if you are out to generalize, there is a general problem of SPAM. Why not solve that instead? 1/2 :-) Seriously, I think that effectively removing contact information from the database is much too similar to sawing off your foot at the knee because you have an itch in one of your toes. I mean, how long will it take before all and everyone needing (out of policy) or wanting to have their contact information publically available to install an auto-filter which will toss messages with "unknown" digital signatures ("of *any* kind"?)??? I think it'll be easier and quicker to deal with the SPAM problem itself before we get there. Besides, the contact information also currently serves as a means for anyone to get in touch with the domain holder or the technical administrator of the domain, in conjunction with e.g. security- related events (yes, I know, it's maybe not fully reliable, but what else is there?), and those messages, even if they were digitally signed, would probably come from an "unknown" key-holder. In all, I have serious misgivings about this general idea of removing contact information from the database. - Håvard
There is a general problem with publicly available email contact information. I would prefer to solve the general problem.
I'd say that if you are out to generalize, there is a general problem of SPAM. Why not solve that instead? 1/2 :-)
Without a doubt... SPAM is the problem and states in the US are working on legislation to dampen it and ISP's IAP's are moving forcibly to compile info on spammers and to knock them off when they receive spam. The general public has been a bit slow to realize how to report spam, which is why it was able to get so out of hand, to begin with.
Seriously, I think that effectively removing contact information from the database is much too similar to sawing off your foot at the knee because you have an itch in one of your toes.
As far as I know, I was the only one to use your CHANGE information and since I've been educated on the fact (I guess... :-) ) that it is historical, I'll make the extra efforts to exclude it in anti-spam notices... Tell me, has anyone else used your change information in the whois databases??
In all, I have serious misgivings about this general idea of removing contact information from the database. This is an important, universal argument that applies to virtually all sources of information... the information used properly is a great thing.... if used improperly by ignorance, than new information and learning is required. If used intentionally for abusive purposes (ie. spam, malicious harassment, endangerment, threats, etc.) then the proper action to take seems to be identifying the abuser and punishing them.
Hopefully, most people are good and honest and prone to mistakes. Only the minority that intentionally abuses the data should be restrained or restricted from future abuses.... (whack their fingers off!!! :-) ) You all seem to be very intelligent... sorry if my first reply to you all was a bit harsh (my reaction to the "lamer" comments ...), all of you are very capable of having very meaningful dialogues.... my mail server was down for about two or three days and when it came back up the lamer post was the first one I saw... Take care...
- Håvard
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$
participants (2)
-
.J Leonard -
Havard.Eidnes＠runit.sintef.no