This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/cooperation-wg@ripe.net/
[cooperation-wg] DNS-based filtering
- Previous message (by thread): [cooperation-wg] DNS-based filtering
- Next message (by thread): [cooperation-wg] DNS-based filtering
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Roland Perry
roland at internetpolicyagency.com
Sun Jan 26 17:27:11 CET 2014
In message <D1AC4482BED7C04DAC43491E9A9DBEC3901E9E87 at BK-EXCHMBX01.blacknight.local>, at 15:08:24 on Sun, 26 Jan 2014, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com> writes >Registry operators - particularly ccTLDs - do this all the time, but >I don't see many registrants of domains doing it anymore. What we have to decide for the purposes of this paper is how often/likely the scenario occurs when the authorities want to block such a domain. If it is no longer happening, raising the possibility only confuses the paper. Perhaps they are using other techniques as well, such as fast flux. Of course, it's possible that there are numerous small/medium/large enterprises (be they of criminal intent or otherwise) with multiply- redundant NS; even if members of the public almost never have the benefit for their personal websites. >And I thought this paper was about domains more than domain registries? Yes, which is why the paper should positively avoid the inclusion of confusing examples such as domains operated by I* entities. -- Roland Perry
- Previous message (by thread): [cooperation-wg] DNS-based filtering
- Next message (by thread): [cooperation-wg] DNS-based filtering
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]