North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Internic hosage (fwd)

  • From: Dean Robb
  • Date: Sat Mar 21 21:04:22 1998

At 15:41 3/21/98 -0500, you wrote:

>>Try reading again.  I have no problem, nor did I imply a problem, with
>>foreign hosts having listings in InterNIC.  The 'Net IS worldwide, after
>>all.  I cannot imagine where you get the idea that I "won't accept" this
>Oh. I see.  You didn't write this:
>>>Dean Robb:
>>>Traceroute confirms that is hosted by  The
>>>WhoIs-listed IP is, the machine on which Host.Net runs their
>>>webpage, FTP, et al.  Not real likely they'd give that out for a hosted
>>>domain's IP.
>Sounds pretty conspiratorial to me. It is indeed very "likely" that they'd
>give out a host record for a hosted domain's IP. There is
>absolutely nothing wrong with that.

1.  Your interpretation of "conspiratorial" is completely outside the realm
of your initial statement that I had a problem with foreign hosts in
InterNIC.  The words you quoted also don't support your opening assertion.
Please look up "relevant" in the dictionary.

2.  Conspiracy requires two or more persons to engage in an activity
together.  My point was that the person who registered lied to
InterNIC.  One person cannot be a conspiracy. Please look up "conspiracy"
in the dictionary.

3.  Do you register domains you host as  If so, please go
re-read the RFCs to see how to properly list a hosted domain.  The
registration was not that of a proper domain, nor is it hosted by
as the registration claimed.

>>>Dean Robb:
>>>So....four days ago, [side issue:  Why does a machine,
>>>"perhaps", have a host entry in WhoIs, but the domain, "" not?]
>>>updated their WhoIs record with a bunch of lies.  THAT is the point, and
>>>the problem.  What is NSI/InterNIC going to do about it, Eric?
>So your "side issue" above is completely untrustworthy. I admit, I just
>tried whois -h I should have looked at the web page. I am
>wrong about them not having a whois page.

1.  Untrustworthy?  Somehow, I don't think that's the word you were looking
for.  Sadly, there's no way to know what word you were looking for as the
point was that the registration was in the standard form for a machine
name, not a domain name and you didn't dispute that.  
>The correct answer, is that the Internic is not, can not, and will not do
>anything about it until they are asked by someone authoritative. And you
>aren't that. Look for conspiracies where you will.

1.  Please, Oliver Stone, Jr....quit talking of conspiracies.  The only
conspiracy around here is your determination to use the word as often as
possible.  InterNIC...and any other registry or network operator...should
investigate ANY report of a problem.  There is no RFC, statutory nor
intelligent reason that the reporter need be "someone authoritative".  

2.  Assuming that for some reason unknown, a reporter of a problem must be
"authoritative"...who would qualify?  A system administrator?  A sysadmin
with over 100 systems?  CEO of an ISP?  

3.  You know nothing of my qualifications, job or anything else.  How do
you know I'm *not* authoritative?

4.  In fact, InterNIC DID remove the domain.  Apparently, someone hijacked
the name when he registered with InterNIC from the REAL owner
for reasons unknown. 
Apparently, NSI doesn't agree with your stance.

>>net.abusers trying to avoid identification.  There may be a large number of
>>just plain errors, why is nothing done to try to clean up the
>I think that Internic gets paid. Thats pretty strong "correct" information.
>Anyway, there is not a real database on the planet that has entirely
>correct information.  In this case, the incorrectness of the information is
>trivial, and has no effect on anything.  No one can hijack a domain from
>another registry this way.

1.  How does "paid" equal "correct information"?  That's probably the most
illogical, of many, thing you've said.

2.  Do you assert that because no database has entirely correct information
that no effort should be made to clean up the WhoIs database?

3.  In this case, it is a fairly minor issue.  However, it exemplifies a
major problem:  false information in InterNIC registrations that NSI
refuses to do anything about.
I note that you fail to address that issue...the whole point...the any manner whatsoever.

>>As for nothing InterNIC or NANOG can do:  It is NSI's job to administer the
>Several people have said this. I've said it several times: Its Tonic's
>database, not Internics.  Being such a simple concept, nothing more really
>needs to be said.

1.  Please...try to keep up here.  The false information is in WhoIs, the
InterNIC database administered by Network Solutions, Inc, found at  Being such a simple concept, surely
you can understand that.  
>Second, and several people have also confirmed this as well, the incorrect
>host record may be just innocently incorrect.  It's not your concern. Its
>not nanogs concern. In fact, Internic can't tell whether the real owner of
> owns that ip address or not.  If they don't own it, they
>can complain to Internic about it. But you can't. It doesn't belong to you.

1.  Of course it's perfectly innocent!  The registrant accidently typed in
the correct IP of another network, one that he is *not* hosted on, along
with it's name.  Perfectly understandable accident.  

2. I'll type it slowly:  if the domain is not at the IP address listed, and
if it's not hosted by the listed DNS servers, then it's a pretty safe bet
that they don't own the listed IP.   

3.  Ah, I see.  Using your logic, then, only a police officer should report
a crime; only a firefighter should own a fire extinguisher; only a domain
owner should talk to InterNIC.  Really,
Dean... For someone so gung-ho
on the rights of people, you sure seem convinced that I don't have a right
to complain.
>There is no conspiracy to conceal information.  There is no conspiracy by
>Internic to enable hijacking domains and populate their database with
>incorrect information.

Whoever said there was?  Large numbers of net abusers (including [gasp!]
spammers) falsify their registrations.  InterNIC isn't part of any
conspiracy, they just don't enforce their contract nor do they properly
administer their database.  What is your fascination with conspiracies?
>This is a good example of anti-spammer terrorism. Mr. Robb here appears to
>encourage annoying or hate mails to a private account, and slander me with
>hate mail. I rarely send mail from that account, and never publicly.  It
>must have taken some research for Mr. Robb to find that address. This, in
>fact, is inappropriate behavior.

Ah, a fine example of how anyone who doesn't agree with you is an
"anti-spammer terrorist".  I'm merely trying to clarify at which of your
public addresses you want people to contact you.  Please, do tame that
jerking knee.  No one said "slander", "flame" or anything else.  

As for the "research", YOU ARE AN IDIOT AND A LIAR.  The "research" I did?
I visited your website:  I visited a page on your
website:  I read a sentence near the
bottom of the page:  "I began my consulting service using an account on
"", which I still have (I'm [email protected]). I sent out
email to customers, and potential customers of my services."   

By your own admission, you send unsolicited commercial email from that
account.  Since you elsewhere indicate that address harvesting is
appropriate behavior, then what have I done wrong?
>I have to question whether its appropriate for Mr. Robb to be on the Nanog

Sorry.  You don't own the list, you can't complain.  Your logic, sir...and
your petard.


>Indeed, he is one of the innocent victims of anti-spammer terrorism. He has
>suffered through bonafide denial of service attacks, unable to get the
>FBI's attention, because they seem to involve spam, and 99% of all spam
>complaints are frivolous

Now, provide some real facts, please.  Where do you get your percentages?
What qualifies a complaint as "frivolous"?  Explain why Mr. Shein was
unable to pick up the phone and call the FBI.  Your assertion is also
illogical...if Mr. Shein was an innocent victim, why is he an active
anti-spam activist (oh, redundancy!).

My dear Mr. have an axe to grind, and fact/reality won't
sway you.  You also can't argue logically, as the above proves.  Since you
have proven yourself a fool, and I have no time for fools, I'll not respond
to any further silly things you want to say.  The questions posed are
rhetorical, left as an exercise for the reader in determining the validity
of your statements.

Spam:  it's not just for breakfast anymore....

Dean Robb
On-site computer services
(757) 495-EASY [3279]