At 16:24 3/21/98 -0500, you wrote:
Eric Eden, Internic: In this case we removed the host and notified the contact of the host because it is not currently serving any domain names or networks in our database.
[Not because there was anything "false" about it. It is still served up by Tonic]
*Sigh*. The host at InterNIC was registered with a false IP address and a false DNS provider. The Tonic entry was correct. How hard is this to understand?
Dean Robb: Most excellent. Now, what would you have done if it was Dirtbag.com that had provided the false information?
I have to question why people intentionally supply false information. Perhaps to avoid harassment from radical and misguided people? I have to presume in this case that Mr. Robb considers himself the sole judge of appropriateness of the entity. Given that youwant.to was perfectly legit, except for some cruftiness, I don't think we can really trust his judgement on such matters.
1. Fortunately, no one is asking you to trust my judgement. Not, of course, that yours is provably better since you provably don't know what you're talking about. 2. I do not consider myself sole judge of anything (except my behavior and [temporarily] that of my infant son. I point you to RFCs 2050, 1032, 1033, 920, 1173 and 1174 (that I know of offhand) that require current and correct NIC and WhoIs information from the registrant/owner of a domain. I quote in whole 2 paragraphs from the current NSI Registration Agreement: K. Warranty. Registrant warrants by submitting this Registration Agreement that, to the best of Registrant's knowledge and belief, the information submitted herein is true and correct, and that any future changes to this information will be provided to NSI in a timely manner according to the domain name modification procedures in place at that time. Breach of this warranty will constitute a material breach. L. Revocation. Registrant agrees that NSI may delete a Registrant's domain name if this Registration Agreement, or subsequent modification(s) thereto, contains false or misleading information, or conceals or omits any information NSI would likely consider material to its decision to approve this Registration Agreement. So you see, it's not ME being a judge, it's following the rules of the Internet and InterNIC. Really, you should be more familiar with the RFCs and InterNIC guidelines if you run an ISP and consult. It helps to know the material you're consulting about.
This brings up an issue with whois databases that is relevant to nanog: Who should have access to whois contact information and its misuse.
A valid point of discussion. Be sure to include the members of the IS, IETF, et al that made that provision part of the Internet Standards RFCs.
Perhaps we need to have a way to authenticate and limit who can get phone numbers and email addresses from the whois database, in order to prevent the kind of harassment and abuse apparently exercised by Mr. Robb.
Ah, now we see a slanderous comment! Prove I have engaged in any form of harassment or abuse, sir. Otherwise, we can only conclude that you are a fool, and a liar, and an "anti-anti-spammer terrorist". Welcome to ad hominem. There is a reasonable debate that can be held regarding privacy issues and directory services. There are a couple of RFCs (whose numbers I don't have at hand) on this issue. I'll not respond to Mr. Anderson on the matter though...he hurt my feewings. Spam: it's not just for breakfast anymore.... Dean Robb PC-Easy On-site computer services (757) 495-EASY [3279]