Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner(_at_)nic-naa(_dot_)net> wrote:
I don't consider whois:43 to be any part of the solution-space. I'll add,
I don't consider CRISP, uwho, and other 954-incompatible :43 mechanisms
to be part of the solution-space. Solutions to, or causes of, some other
problems? Yes. Spam? No.
I never said that I believed them to be part of the solution space.
I insinuated that we may *choose* to make them part of the solution
space. If there are good reasons for not making that choice, I am
prepared to accept those reasons, and to accept that whois:43 is not
part of the solution space.
Before posting my comments on ASRG, I had seen few reasons given on
the list as to why whois:43 could not be part of the solution space.
Please understand that I'm not an expert in all possible domains which
intersect the spam problem, and that I've never claimed to be an
all-knowing expert.
However, please also understand that any post to the list which
rules out a particular solution MUST ALWAYS be backed up with
evidence. Simply saying "I'm an expert, you're wrong" is a system
solely designed to waste everyone's time.
Message-Id: <E19E9qV-0008NP-00(_at_)mail(_dot_)nitros9(_dot_)org> contains
the theory
that registrars can be motivated by second-order effects (from the point
of view of a registrar), viz:
"... registrars to be made accountable to the rest of the
network, for permitting spammers to operate."
Which is a very careful misquote:
https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg04540.html
"Forcing spammers to register new domains in order to spam means
that the registrars are a central point of control on spammers
activities. This allows registrars to be made accountable ... "
^^^^^^
Forgive me for not adding an explicit "if we so choose" to the end
of that statement. The key word, which you carefully quoted around is
"allows". I did NOT say "requires", or "demands", as you appear to
have taken it to say.
I'm sorry that you are interested in deliberately misconstruing what
I say, and are deliberately putting the most negative possible
interpretation on my statements.
This appears to overlook the possibility that registrars are motivated
by first-order effects (again, from the point of view of a registrar),
to wit -- non-payment by spammers, non-voidable charges by registries,
and charge-back policies by credit card operators.
Ah. So when I fail to mention all possible motivations, and all
possible effects of spammer-registrar interaction, I'm "overlooking"
things.
No thanks. My statements are meant to be interpreted exactly as
they are written. No more, no less.
Is that clearer? Do you see now that not knowing something impairs your
ability to reason about registrars?
That much is obvious, and I agree.
What I'm disappointed in is your negative spin of my statements.
Deliberately misquoting, misconstruing, and misinterpreting what other
people say is a recipe for disaster.
The possibility exists that you'll write something useful and intelligent
on how RADIUS can, or cannot, be applied to this problem domain. You may
have other qualities I'm simply unaware of, which are relevent to this
list.
As for RADIUS, you can be guaranteed that if you, or anyone else
posts dumb ideas about RADIUS to the lists I'm on, that my responses
will be based on references to RFC's, explanations, and other reality
based evidence. The only time I fall back to appealing to authority
is when people refuse to be educated about a topic, and my response is
"I control the software. I will do what I believe to be right."
Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg