Rick Merrill wrote:
> Dan Lanciani wrote:
>> ap@telecom-digest.org (Anick Jesdanun, Associated Press) wrote:
>>> ICM believes the domain would help the $12 billion online porn
>>> industry clean up its act, as those using it must abide by rules
>>> designed to bar such trickery as spamming and malicious scripts.
>> It's a shame we can't have rules like that for existing domains ...
> Why the fuss about "domains"? There's tons of free stuff on Usenet
> and no one wants to regulate that.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, yes we do, if the 'free stuff on
> Usenet' amounts to secret, hidden viruses or spam built into the 'free
> stuff'. But, the vast majority of the 'free stuff on Usenet' only
> applies to the recipient of same, where 'domains' on the other hand
> sre specifically intended as places for others to visit. I can (not
> as easily as I would like) control what 'free stuff' does to my own
> computer, where when I choose to visit a 'domain' if there is any
> malevolent stuff hidden there, it often times gets installed without
> asking me to do anything, i.e. no 'tip off' about what is coming next.
> Now, as I stated here yesterday, ICANN and its various supporters
> _could_ crack down severely on all the domains and the crapola which
> is sent out to the public, but they don't want to, and they'll (or
> mainly their supporters) can give you thousands of reasons why ICANN
> should not be held to account for the general mess we refer to as the
> 'net' these days, but believe me, if any of them gave an iota one way
> or another (and didn't have their own vested interests) things would
> be a lot different. PAT]
1. I meant "free porn" (I've never encountered a virus directly on
Usenet - only indirectly through Spam on Usenet).
2. No one who wants to regulate porn seems to be aware of Usenet binaries.
3. Exactly HOW Could ICANN "crack down" on world-wide crapola?
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If you ever wish to encounter 'a virus
directly on Usenet' please allow me to call your attention to the
'comp.dcom.telecom' newsgroup. If my incoming spam mailbox is any
indicator -- based on the way the poor devils originally addressed the
mail -- you'll find a lot of it there. I get a couple hundred spams
and viruses here each day, which were originally intended for the
newsgroup; items which got here because the senders were too damn dumb
to know how moderated newsgroups operate. The smarter ones know how to
bypass 'moderation' so they get through okay.
Now regards your question (3) above -- and the ICANN cheering squad
does not like me saying this -- if ICANN would re-write their
contracts allowing them (ICANN) to take the required actions (such
as Fido did for years, declaring the offender a 'nuisance' and denying
them connectivity) that would be a good start. Just as ICANN is going
to start the '.xxx' domain, if they wished they could also start a
'.spam' and a '.scam' domain and force users into those areas if they
wished. But we all know what a joke ICANN is anyway; I'll hold my
breath waiting for ICANN to make themselves useful, will you join me?
PAT]
Rick Merrill (rick0.merrill@NOSPAM.gmail.com)