30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

The Telecom Digest for December 25, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 329 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: FTC warns that expanding DNS could lead to increased fraud (Geoffrey Welsh)
Re: FTC warns that expanding DNS could lead to increased fraud (Adam H. Kerman)
Re: AT&Ts failed bid for T-Mobile will be quite expensive (danny burstein)
Re: FTC warns that expanding DNS could lead to increased fraud (tlvp)
Merry Christmas (Telecom Digest Moderator)
Re: FTC warns that expanding DNS could lead to increased fraud (Doug McIntyre)

====== 30 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======

Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Bill Horne and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using any name or email address included herein for any reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to that person, or email address owner.
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without the explicit written consent of the owner of that address. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.

We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime.  - Geoffrey Welsh


See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest.


Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 16:09:41 -0500 From: "Geoffrey Welsh" <gwelsh@spamcop.net> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: FTC warns that expanding DNS could lead to increased fraud Message-ID: <495a6$4ef4ed5a$adce11c8$7343@PRIMUS.CA> I have a client whose domain name is two letters followed by ".com". Recently the contact addresses for the domain received an email claiming to be a DMCA takedown notice related to a site whose domain name ENDED in those two letters (i.e, those two letters are a valid country code.) There was no further correspondence after I replied pointing out that my client was not affiliated with the domain and in no way responsible for domains handed out by a registrar in a country half way around the world but it bothers me that someone, whether law clerk or scammer, who could be bothered to look up the domain contacts and yet make the cybernetic equivalent of assuming that John Goodman is the same person as Elton John. (If anything, people should be aware that 'similarity' is an unnatural concept to a computer, and that even the subtlest difference between two input values is likely to cause a computer to treat them as unrelated.) Anyway, I'm not sure if I'm agreeing that introducing new domains poses significantly increased risk or whether I'm writing off some people as so inattentive to detail that trying to limit the risk is pointless.
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 18:45:27 +0000 (UTC) From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: FTC warns that expanding DNS could lead to increased fraud Message-ID: <jd56k7$c16$3@news.albasani.net> Geoffrey Welsh <gwelsh@spamcop.net> wrote: >I have a client whose domain name is two letters followed by ".com". >Recently the contact addresses for the domain received an email >claiming to be a DMCA takedown notice related to a site whose domain >name ENDED in those two letters (i.e, those two letters are a valid >country code.) ... [and] it bothers me that someone, whether law >clerk or scammer, who could be bothered to look up the domain contacts >and yet make the cybernetic equivalent of assuming that John Goodman >is the same person as Elton John. [Moderator snip] >Anyway, I'm not sure if I'm agreeing that introducing new domains >poses significantly increased risk or whether I'm writing off some >people as so inattentive to detail that trying to limit the risk is >pointless. You sure that the takedown notice was prepared by a person? ***** Moderator's Note ***** If the "DMCA" notice was machine-generated, then that's a lot worse: if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the SOPA bill becomes law, then the entertainment industry will obviously be motivated to automate the DMCA notice and domain-removal processes. After all, they'll figure that false-positives waste the time of "those nerds", and assume that anything they do will have a chilling effect on every website owner, ISP, and (most importantly) on the whole apparatus of electronic entertainment distribution and sales, all to the betterment of their stranglehold on the production of plastic media. I have said before, and now repeat, my belief that "copyright protection" is a red herring: copying has always been, and always will be, a marginal cost to the entertainment industry. What the industry's executives are really afraid of is that performers will realize that they can get more money from "shareware" entertainment than they'll be paid by the cokebrained thugs at the record labels: once a single major artist demonstrates this for all to see, Hollywood's Golden Goose will be applying for work in the insurance industry, and a lot of coke dealers will be out of their very easy jobs. Bill Horne Moderator Moderator's Note Copyright (C) 2011 E. William Horne. All Rights Reserved.
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:32:19 +0000 (UTC) From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: AT&Ts failed bid for T-Mobile will be quite expensive Message-ID: <jd2dv3$1pe$1@reader1.panix.com> In <jd28td$qna$1@dont-email.me> Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> writes: >By Sean Ludwig - The Washington Post [snip] >Because its proposed $39 billion merger fell through, AT&T now has to >give up piles of cash and benefits to T-Mobile. AT&T will enter into a >7-year 3G roaming agreement that will boost T-Mobile coverage.... > >http://tinyurl.com/cqde4nc > As a T-Mobile subscriber (from back in the Omnipoint days!) and a former shareholder, I've been following this particular part of the story with a great deal of interest. Unspoken by most reporters (maybe all...) is that TM had roaming agreements in many of these areas with the various (formerly) small and local, third party, carriers. When AT&T gobbled them up, the roaming agreements were often not renewed [a]. Hence in many areas, TM customers suddenly woke up one morning and found they no longer had workable service. I have friends in California (hi, Steve) and in Michigan who, if not for TM's "hotspot at home" WIFI based alternative, would be carrying around useless bricks. Hopefully AT&T will now allow TM voice callers back on their network. [a] I don't know if AT&T "just said no" to TM continuing to roam, or if they made the finances and other conditions absurdely painful. -- _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 14:41:40 -0500 From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: FTC warns that expanding DNS could lead to increased fraud Message-ID: <1weklgcwqgujr$.wliiiaoadrny$.dlg@40tude.net> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 16:09:41 -0500, Geoffrey Welsh wrote: > I have a client whose domain name is two letters followed by ".com". > Recently the contact addresses for the domain received an email > claiming to be a DMCA takedown notice related to a site whose domain > name ENDED in those two letters (i.e, those two letters are a valid > country code.) Let me try to understand. Your client's domain name might have been, say, ru.net or tv.com, and the takedown notice emanated from, say, net.ru or com.tv? That'd be amusing :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 21:02:32 -0500 From: Telecom Digest Moderator <redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Merry Christmas Message-ID: <20111225020232.GA12322@telecom.csail.mit.edu> For those who observe the December 25th holiday, I wish you a Merry Christmas. For those with other beliefs, please accept my assurance that my spirit of goodwill is towards all men, no matter their faiths. Bill -- Bill Horne Moderator
Date: 25 Dec 2011 04:05:19 GMT From: Doug McIntyre <merlyn@geeks.org> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: FTC warns that expanding DNS could lead to increased fraud Message-ID: <4ef6a0ff$0$79796$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net> tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> writes: >On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 16:09:41 -0500, Geoffrey Welsh wrote: >> I have a client whose domain name is two letters followed by ".com". >> Recently the contact addresses for the domain received an email >> claiming to be a DMCA takedown notice related to a site whose domain >> name ENDED in those two letters (i.e, those two letters are a valid >> country code.) >Let me try to understand. Your client's domain name might have been, say, >ru.net or tv.com, and the takedown notice emanated from, say, net.ru or >com.tv? That'd be amusing :-) . As a service provider with several IP blocks, we tend to get a few DMCA notices. I'd estimate at any given time, at least 10~20% of them are bogus. Yes, I get mixups in domain names all the time, somebody looked up the .com version when whatever was wrong was in somebody else's .net or whatever IP space. My customer has the .com, somebody else has the .net. People just assume the .com.
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom- munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Bill Horne. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne.
Contact information: Bill Horne
Telecom Digest
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
863-455-9426
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then.  Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!

URL information: http://telecom-digest.org


Copyright (C) 2011 TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

End of The Telecom Digest (6 messages)

Return to Archives ** Older Issues