North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: more Internic nightmare

  • From: Larry Snyder
  • Date: Tue Mar 23 20:20:08 1999

"Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email protected]> wrote:
> At 04:03 PM 3/23/99 -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
> >
> >> Randy we've been there - done that - the only answer is PREPAY.
> >
> >that's one approach to the cybersquatter issue.  like all solutions, it has
> >it's good and bad points.  but i meets my needs, so what the heck.
> >
> >but this does not address the miner/spammer issues.
> Actually it would if you also restrict whois to tech contacts. It would
> only take a slight modification for the whois client to read and send the
> uuid of the account doing the requesting. The whois server could then reply
> or deny, based on that information. The fact that one then has to have a
> domain in order to use the whois database, plus the pre-pay requirement,
> should slow them down a bit.

This would only work using a local whois client.  Web and telnet-based
whois would break due to their anonymity.  OTOH, a limited response
might be implemented for those.  Or not....  It still sounds like a lot
of work for the implementors who seem to have their hands full already.
> Yes, this can be circumvented, but it would cost a lot more than the $70
> for a domain registration. In addition, the whois server would know exactly
> who is mining the data and would be able to track them, even if they spread
> it out over months.
> ___________________________________________________ 
> Roeland M.J. Meyer - 
> e-mail:                                      mailto:[email protected]
> Internet phone:                      
> Personal web pages:   
> Company web-site:                 
> ___________________________________________________ 
>                        KISS ... gotta love it!