[anti-abuse-wg] DNS Abuse, Abuse of Privacy & Legitimizing Criminal Activity

On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 22:18:00 -0800
David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:
> Andre,
> On Jan 3, 2017, at 9:57 PM, ox <andre at ox.co.za> wrote:
> > When respected Internet Engineers and organizations develop
> > standards for Internet software that completely ignores ethics,
> > morality, honesty and is pale and anemic in the truth department?
> 
> You've developed quite the messianic complex here.
> 
You do not say why this is not true. or not factual. or not correct.

You prefer to reply that I have psychological diversion, or fake
beliefs, instead of playing the ball...

Nice.

> > I strongly object to RPZ being peddled as a "standard" by the
> > Internet Community.
> 
> The presumed draft you're unhappy about
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vixie-dns-rpz/) is
> informational. It is not a standard.
> 
not yet a standard. operational word, I guess, is yet. so there is

still time to create awareness and to speak out.


> > RPZ will destroy the Internet - people are lazy (i am lazy also)
> 
> Actually, it is the people who do stuff that makes RPZ a solution
> that are destroying the Internet. RPZ is a hack that some folks find
> useful in addressing particular forms of abuse, nothing more.
> 
And, this, in your argument, makes it okay to pave the road to make
this fait accompli in terms of what is acceptable Internet standards or
modus. Never mind that it is evil, wrong, immoral or at best, unethical?

> > Quite obviously we, as an Internet Community, already no longer
> > cares much about the truth of something, which is also why we live
> > in a post-truth planet.
> 
> Yow. RPZ is a tool. You don't like that tool? Don't use it. You care
> about the "truth"? Do your own DNSSEC validation.
> 
Sure, there are many tools, hacker tools, 0day scripts (for kidd1eS)

but none of them have their own  informational IETF draft, on its way
to becoming a standard, if not opposed.

> Personally, I'd prefer a world where there are fewer tools that are
> well described, even if some times those tools may be used in ways
> that I don't agree with, than in a world of a myriad of tools, poorly
> described, all trying to solve the same problem (using a solution I
> may not agree with), doing it in ways that are incompatible.
> Or do you think that by refusing to document something that it
> magically goes away?
> 
Your argument above is the same basic argument that has been stated
before and simply boils down to:

"This is the way things work, will work in the future and if I do not
like it, make my own Internet." - and you added that it is good to have
everything documented.

Why do you not discuss the real issues? 

This is also how the "other side" buries the real issues, by wind, air and fake truth.

The truth is: I do not have a messianic complex

The further truth is that you have made it abundantly clear how you
"feel"  and I thank you for your "feelings" in this regard.

The truth is, very obviously, you do not care about the truth :)

Andre