Perspectives on Spamhaus's Dilemma

It is absolutely shameful that the US courts have chosen to protect a
spammer and are trying to force Spamhaus into *NOT* blocking the spammer.
Spamhaus is perfectly within their rights to block a known spamming
company...afterall Spamhaus is in the UK where spamming is illegal...

"The Illinois court that told Spamhaus to stop blocking the spammer filing
suit against them ? an order which Spamhaus ignored ? is now considering
ordering ICANN to pull Spamhaus's domain records. While Gadi Evron, whose
blog posting is linked above, urges everyone to beat the judge with a clue
stick, a guest writer on his blog counsels much greater restraint."

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/09/1825232&from =rss

Imhotep

On 2006-10-10, imhotep <imhotep [at] nospam.net> wrote:
> Perspectives on Spamhaus's Dilemma
>
> It is absolutely shameful that the US courts have chosen to protect a
> spammer and are trying to force Spamhaus into *NOT* blocking the spammer.
> Spamhaus is perfectly within their rights to block a known spamming
> company...afterall Spamhaus is in the UK where spamming is illegal...
>
> "The Illinois court that told Spamhaus to stop blocking the spammer filing
> suit against them ? an order which Spamhaus ignored ? is now considering
> ordering ICANN to pull Spamhaus's domain records. While Gadi Evron, whose
> blog posting is linked above, urges everyone to beat the judge with a clue
> stick, a guest writer on his blog counsels much greater restraint."
>
> http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/09/1825232&from =rss

Spamhaus aren't blocking anything. US courts have no juridiction in
the UK (despite what they think.)

Spamhaus should just tell them to fuck off.

--
"Other people are not your property."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]

On 2006-10-10, imhotep <imhotep [at] nospam.net> wrote:
> Perspectives on Spamhaus's Dilemma
>
> It is absolutely shameful that the US courts have chosen to protect a
> spammer and are trying to force Spamhaus into *NOT* blocking the spammer.
> Spamhaus is perfectly within their rights to block a known spamming
> company...afterall Spamhaus is in the UK where spamming is illegal...
>
> "The Illinois court that told Spamhaus to stop blocking the spammer filing
> suit against them ? an order which Spamhaus ignored ? is now considering
> ordering ICANN to pull Spamhaus's domain records. While Gadi Evron, whose
> blog posting is linked above, urges everyone to beat the judge with a clue
> stick, a guest writer on his blog counsels much greater restraint."
>
> http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/09/1825232&from =rss

Spamhaus aren't blocking anything. US courts have no juridiction in
the UK (despite what they think.)

Spamhaus should just tell them to fuck off.

--
"Other people are not your property."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]

In comp.os.linux.security Huge <Huge [at] nowhere.much.invalid>:
> On 2006-10-10, imhotep <imhotep [at] nospam.net> wrote:
>> Perspectives on Spamhaus's Dilemma

>> It is absolutely shameful that the US courts have chosen to protect a
>> spammer and are trying to force Spamhaus into *NOT* blocking the spammer.
>> Spamhaus is perfectly within their rights to block a known spamming
>> company...afterall Spamhaus is in the UK where spamming is illegal...

>> "The Illinois court that told Spamhaus to stop blocking the spammer filing
>> suit against them ? an order which Spamhaus ignored ? is now considering
>> ordering ICANN to pull Spamhaus's domain records. While Gadi Evron, whose
>> blog posting is linked above, urges everyone to beat the judge with a clue
>> stick, a guest writer on his blog counsels much greater restraint."

>> http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/09/1825232&from =rss

> Spamhaus aren't blocking anything. US courts have no juridiction in
> the UK (despite what they think.)

True, but the tld .org is handled from the US. The whole thing is
a really sad said story. The US court should have never allowed
to open the case against Spamhaus in the US. I just went to:

http://www.spamhaus.org/donations/

THANK YOU

On behalf of the Spamhaus Team, thanks for your help!

And made a little donation, would be great if others who use
Spamhaus from SA or via other methods or/and benefit from their
great work would do the same, to show our support for them!

Doesn't have to be much, perhaps you have a few bucks on your
paypal account flying around? But we should let them know about
our support for their operations!

Anyone else?

--
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvpunry [at] urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 314: You need to upgrade your VESA local bus to
a MasterCard local bus.

In comp.os.linux.security Huge <Huge [at] nowhere.much.invalid>:
> On 2006-10-10, imhotep <imhotep [at] nospam.net> wrote:
>> Perspectives on Spamhaus's Dilemma

>> It is absolutely shameful that the US courts have chosen to protect a
>> spammer and are trying to force Spamhaus into *NOT* blocking the spammer.
>> Spamhaus is perfectly within their rights to block a known spamming
>> company...afterall Spamhaus is in the UK where spamming is illegal...

>> "The Illinois court that told Spamhaus to stop blocking the spammer filing
>> suit against them ? an order which Spamhaus ignored ? is now considering
>> ordering ICANN to pull Spamhaus's domain records. While Gadi Evron, whose
>> blog posting is linked above, urges everyone to beat the judge with a clue
>> stick, a guest writer on his blog counsels much greater restraint."

>> http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/09/1825232&from =rss

> Spamhaus aren't blocking anything. US courts have no juridiction in
> the UK (despite what they think.)

True, but the tld .org is handled from the US. The whole thing is
a really sad said story. The US court should have never allowed
to open the case against Spamhaus in the US. I just went to:

http://www.spamhaus.org/donations/

THANK YOU

On behalf of the Spamhaus Team, thanks for your help!

And made a little donation, would be great if others who use
Spamhaus from SA or via other methods or/and benefit from their
great work would do the same, to show our support for them!

Doesn't have to be much, perhaps you have a few bucks on your
paypal account flying around? But we should let them know about
our support for their operations!

Anyone else?

--
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvpunry [at] urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 314: You need to upgrade your VESA local bus to
a MasterCard local bus.

Huge wrote:

> On 2006-10-10, imhotep <imhotep [at] nospam.net> wrote:
>> Perspectives on Spamhaus's Dilemma
>>
>> It is absolutely shameful that the US courts have chosen to protect a
>> spammer and are trying to force Spamhaus into *NOT* blocking the spammer.
>> Spamhaus is perfectly within their rights to block a known spamming
>> company...afterall Spamhaus is in the UK where spamming is illegal...
>>
>> "The Illinois court that told Spamhaus to stop blocking the spammer
>> filing suit against them ? an order which Spamhaus ignored ? is now
>> considering ordering ICANN to pull Spamhaus's domain records. While Gadi
>> Evron, whose blog posting is linked above, urges everyone to beat the
>> judge with a clue stick, a guest writer on his blog counsels much greater
>> restraint."
>>
>> http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/09/1825232&from =rss
>
> Spamhaus aren't blocking anything. US courts have no juridiction in
> the UK (despite what they think.)
>
> Spamhaus should just tell them to fuck off.
>

As a US citizen, I totally agree. It is time for the governance of the
Internet to fall under the UN.

I am shocked at the US courts for protecting a spammer, not to meantion that
in the UK, which is where Spamhaus is located, spamming is illegal. What
possible jurisdiction does that judge think he has?

I have heard that the judge is threatening to take away the domain name from
Spamhaus. I could not believe it.

Imhotep
Imhotep

Michael Heiming wrote:

> In comp.os.linux.security Huge <Huge [at] nowhere.much.invalid>:
>> On 2006-10-10, imhotep <imhotep [at] nospam.net> wrote:
>>> Perspectives on Spamhaus's Dilemma
>
>>> It is absolutely shameful that the US courts have chosen to protect a
>>> spammer and are trying to force Spamhaus into *NOT* blocking the
>>> spammer. Spamhaus is perfectly within their rights to block a known
>>> spamming company...afterall Spamhaus is in the UK where spamming is
>>> illegal...
>
>>> "The Illinois court that told Spamhaus to stop blocking the spammer
>>> filing suit against them ? an order which Spamhaus ignored ? is now
>>> considering ordering ICANN to pull Spamhaus's domain records. While Gadi
>>> Evron, whose blog posting is linked above, urges everyone to beat the
>>> judge with a clue stick, a guest writer on his blog counsels much
>>> greater restraint."
>
>>> http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/09/1825232&from =rss
>
>> Spamhaus aren't blocking anything. US courts have no juridiction in
>> the UK (despite what they think.)
>
> True, but the tld .org is handled from the US. The whole thing is
> a really sad said story. The US court should have never allowed
> to open the case against Spamhaus in the US. I just went to:
>
> http://www.spamhaus.org/donations/
>
> THANK YOU
>
> On behalf of the Spamhaus Team, thanks for your help!
>
> And made a little donation, would be great if others who use
> Spamhaus from SA or via other methods or/and benefit from their
> great work would do the same, to show our support for them!
>
> Doesn't have to be much, perhaps you have a few bucks on your
> paypal account flying around? But we should let them know about
> our support for their operations!
>
> Anyone else?
>


I'm in. This is just plain wrong...

Time for the governance of the Internet to belong to the UN...

Imhotep

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

On 2006-10-16, Leythos <void [at] nowhere.lan> wrote:
> In article <qbSdnVuUVvpsZq_YnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d [at] adelphia.com>,
> imhotep [at] nospam.net says...
>> As a US citizen, I totally agree. It is time for the governance of the
>> Internet to fall under the UN.
>
> The UN doesn't govern anything, it's a completely corrupt organization,
> ineffective at doing anything, and a complete failure.

Get the nurse to give you a new drool towel - that one's all soggy.

The ITU, which is an executive arm of the UN, governs a large number
of assignments of address spaces, including international dialling
codes (where did you think the "1" came from, bozo?), radio call signs
(where did you think the "W" and "K" came from, bozo?), international
country codes (where did you think ".us" came from, bozo?), aircraft
registration letters (where did you think the "N" came from, bozo?) and
doubtless many more things which I can't be arsed to point out to yet
another illiterate fucking American for whom "parochial" is a way
of life.

Assignment of Internet address spaces would be an ideal fit in the
ITU.

Now fuck off and die, eh?


--
"Other people are not your property."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

On 2006-10-16, Leythos <void [at] nowhere.lan> wrote:
> In article <egvoul$3j6$1 [at] apophis.demon.co.uk>, Huge [at] nowhere.much.invalid
> says...
>> On 2006-10-16, Leythos <void [at] nowhere.lan> wrote:
>> > In article <qbSdnVuUVvpsZq_YnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d [at] adelphia.com>,
>> > imhotep [at] nospam.net says...
>> >> As a US citizen, I totally agree. It is time for the governance of the
>> >> Internet to fall under the UN.
>> >
>> > The UN doesn't govern anything, it's a completely corrupt organization,
>> > ineffective at doing anything, and a complete failure.
>>
>> Get the nurse to give you a new drool towel - that one's all soggy.
>>
>> The ITU, which is an executive arm of the UN, governs a large number
>> of assignments of address spaces, including international dialling
>> codes (where did you think the "1" came from, bozo?), radio call signs
>> (where did you think the "W" and "K" came from, bozo?), international
>> country codes (where did you think ".us" came from, bozo?), aircraft
>> registration letters (where did you think the "N" came from, bozo?) and
>> doubtless many more things which I can't be arsed to point out to yet
>> another illiterate fucking American for whom "parochial" is a way
>> of life.
>
> And none of that would have worked without multiple groups, the US being
> one of the largest, doing it for the UN.

Sigh. The ITU is a co-ordinating body, fucktard.

>> Assignment of Internet address spaces would be an ideal fit in the
>> ITU.
>
> Wrong, it works quite well just the way it is.

Except that it doesn't.

>
>> Now fuck off and die, eh?
>
> Nice to see that you don't know how to respond without being immature.

So, you're a hypocrite as well as a bigotted moron.

*plonk*



--
"Other people are not your property."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

In article <egvoul$3j6$1 [at] apophis.demon.co.uk>, Huge wrote:
>
>The ITU, which is an executive arm of the UN, governs a large number
>of assignments of address spaces, including international dialling
>codes (where did you think the "1" came from, bozo?), radio call signs
>(where did you think the "W" and "K" came from, bozo?), international
>country codes (where did you think ".us" came from, bozo?), aircraft
>registration letters (where did you think the "N" came from, bozo?) and
>doubtless many more things which I can't be arsed to point out to yet
>another illiterate fucking American for whom "parochial" is a way
>of life.
>
Let's see here, "1" to dial phone number came into use in no later than
1905 and was instituted by the US phone companies of the time. W and K
for radio stations came in with the FRC (Federal Radio Commision) in 1927.
..us domain names...are virtually unknown. Does *anybody* use them? There's
not a single one in my bookmark file or browser history. N aircraft
registration letters were officially assigned in 1919. So, then, since the
UN goes back only to 1946, the only one it can even begin to plausibly
claim...is the failure.

Bozo.


--
Christopher Mattern

"Which one you figure tracked us?"
"The ugly one, sir."
"...Could you be more specific?"

In comp.security.misc Huge <Huge [at] nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2006-10-16, Leythos <void [at] nowhere.lan> wrote:
> > In article <qbSdnVuUVvpsZq_YnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d [at] adelphia.com>,
> > imhotep [at] nospam.net says...
> >> As a US citizen, I totally agree. It is time for the governance of the
> >> Internet to fall under the UN.
> >
> > The UN doesn't govern anything, it's a completely corrupt organization,
> > ineffective at doing anything, and a complete failure.

> Get the nurse to give you a new drool towel - that one's all soggy.

> The ITU, which is an executive arm of the UN, governs a large number
> of assignments of address spaces, including international dialling
> codes (where did you think the "1" came from, bozo?), radio call signs
> (where did you think the "W" and "K" came from, bozo?), international
> country codes (where did you think ".us" came from, bozo?), aircraft
> registration letters (where did you think the "N" came from, bozo?) and
> doubtless many more things which I can't be arsed to point out to yet
> another illiterate fucking American for whom "parochial" is a way
> of life.

Bzzt, wrong answer.

All that stuff is pre WWII.

The UN is post WWII and had nothing to do with any of it.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In article <i1kc04-am3.ln1 [at] mail.specsol.com>, jimp [at] specsol.spam.sux.com writes:
>In comp.security.misc Huge <Huge [at] nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2006-10-16, Leythos <void [at] nowhere.lan> wrote:
>> > In article <qbSdnVuUVvpsZq_YnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d [at] adelphia.com>,
>> > imhotep [at] nospam.net says...
>> >> As a US citizen, I totally agree. It is time for the governance of the
>> >> Internet to fall under the UN.
>> >
>> > The UN doesn't govern anything, it's a completely corrupt organization,
>> > ineffective at doing anything, and a complete failure.
>
>> Get the nurse to give you a new drool towel - that one's all soggy.
>
>> The ITU, which is an executive arm of the UN, governs a large number
>> of assignments of address spaces, including international dialling
>> codes (where did you think the "1" came from, bozo?), radio call signs
>> (where did you think the "W" and "K" came from, bozo?), international
>> country codes (where did you think ".us" came from, bozo?), aircraft
>> registration letters (where did you think the "N" came from, bozo?) and
>> doubtless many more things which I can't be arsed to point out to yet
>> another illiterate fucking American for whom "parochial" is a way
>> of life.
>
>Bzzt, wrong answer.
>
>All that stuff is pre WWII.
>
>The UN is post WWII and had nothing to do with any of it.
>
And your point is ? ICANN was only established in 1998.

However the situation with the ITU is slightly different in that the
ITU predates the UN as an international organisation by quite some time.
It was established as the International Telegraph Union in Paris on May 17,
1865 and is today the world's oldest international organisation.
It became a UN specialized agency on 15 October 1947.

It would make eminent sense for the body charged with co-ordinating the
internet's system of unique identifiers to become a specialized UN agency along
side the ITU, Universal Postal Union, International Monetary Fund,
World Bank, World Health Organisation etc


David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University



>--
>Jim Pennino
>
>Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Leythos wrote:
> In article <qbSdnVuUVvpsZq_YnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d [at] adelphia.com>,
> imhotep [at] nospam.net says...
>> As a US citizen, I totally agree. It is time for the governance of the
>> Internet to fall under the UN.
>
> The UN doesn't govern anything, it's a completely corrupt organization,
> ineffective at doing anything, and a complete failure.
>
>
>
The UN would/could be more effective if no country had a veto, including
the US.

--
----------------
Barton L. Phillips
Applied Technology Resources, Inc.
Tel: (818)652-9850
Web: http://www.applitec.com

syscjm [at] sumire.eng.sun.com (Chris Mattern) writes:

>Let's see here, "1" to dial phone number came into use in no later than
>1905 and was instituted by the US phone companies of the time. W and K
>for radio stations came in with the FRC (Federal Radio Commision) in 1927.
>.us domain names...are virtually unknown. Does *anybody* use them? There's
>not a single one in my bookmark file or browser history. N aircraft
>registration letters were officially assigned in 1919. So, then, since the
>UN goes back only to 1946, the only one it can even begin to plausibly
>claim...is the failure.

Really? There was no automated long distance calling in the US
until *after* WWII. (A novelty which existed before WWII in,
among others, Sweden, but only in Europe)

The use of numbers for Europe was codified in an international
standard by at least 1960 when much of Europe had automated long
distance (country to country); not so, in the US.

The "1" was not introduced until the 1964 world numbering plan;
most long distance calling in the US was probably still operator assisted
at the time.

Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.

"Barton L. Phillips" <barton [at] applitec.com> writes:

>The UN would/could be more effective if no country had a veto, including
>the US.

Quite; two of the reasons why the UN is less effective than it
could be is:

- the US continuous delinquency in paying its bills
- the abuse of veto power

Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.

On 16 Oct 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.security.firewalls, in article
<egvoul$3j6$1 [at] apophis.demon.co.uk>, Huge wrote:

>The ITU, which is an executive arm of the UN, governs a large number
>of assignments of address spaces, including international dialling
>codes (where did you think the "1" came from, bozo?), radio call signs
>(where did you think the "W" and "K" came from, bozo?),

Ask your teacher - W and K (and A) were assigned to the US over fifteen YEARS
BEFORE the United Nations was formed. And the dialing code '1' was in use
several years before the CCITT finally got around to sort of standardizing it.
Look it up - the proceedings are on the web if you can figure out how to
use a search engine.

>aircraft registration letters (where did you think the "N" came from, bozo?)

Obviously, you are quite unaware that they also predate the UN - in this
case by over well over twenty years, even pre-dating the League Of Nations.
Or haven't you seen pictures in your colouring book of the Dutch, Belgian,
and French aircraft flying between the continent and London before the peace
conference at Versailles in 1919. And you haven't seen pictures of the
de Havilland DH-4A of "Aerial Transport And Travel" in the same year? As
you are so clueless, let me explain that "Aerial Transport And Travel"
was one of the original airline companies in the UK that were eventually
merged into "Imperial Airways" in the 1920s, which later became BOAC -
probably another company you've never heard of.

>and doubtless many more things which I can't be arsed to point out to yet
>another illiterate fucking American for whom "parochial" is a way of life.

Maybe in ten years when you get out of kindergarten, you will have heard of
this thing called google, where you could have looked this up. But I suspect
you will still be to stupid to know how to use it.

>Assignment of Internet address spaces would be an ideal fit in the ITU.

Oh, you mean like assigning one set of letters for radio call signs, and a
completely different set for aircraft registrations - or are you lacking
the ability to look those up and compare them.

You are the complete ass, and obviously need to FOAD like a good troll.
Please stop wasting bandwidth before mommy discovers you've been using
her computer so display your lack of even a single brain cell.

Old guy

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Leythos wrote:
> In article <4533c574$0$4519$e4fe514c [at] news.xs4all.nl>, Casper.Dik [at] Sun.COM
> says...
>> "Barton L. Phillips" <barton [at] applitec.com> writes:
>>
>>> The UN would/could be more effective if no country had a veto, including
>>> the US.
>> Quite; two of the reasons why the UN is less effective than it
>> could be is:
>>
>> - the US continuous delinquency in paying its bills
>
> LOL, take a look at the funding for the UN, see who pays the most.
>
>> - the abuse of veto power
>
> Yea, like anything that Chavez wants should not be vetoed.
>
If the majority of the world wants to follow Chavez then it is our own
fault because we have done something very very wrong. We are just part
of the world not the entire world. The sun does not revolve around the
US or GWB and team.

--
----------------
Barton L. Phillips
Applied Technology Resources, Inc.
Tel: (818)652-9850
Web: http://www.applitec.com

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Huge wrote:

> On 2006-10-10, imhotep <imhotep [at] nospam.net> wrote:
>> Perspectives on Spamhaus's Dilemma
>>
>> It is absolutely shameful that the US courts have chosen to protect a
>> spammer and are trying to force Spamhaus into *NOT* blocking the spammer.
>> Spamhaus is perfectly within their rights to block a known spamming
>> company...afterall Spamhaus is in the UK where spamming is illegal...
>>
>> "The Illinois court that told Spamhaus to stop blocking the spammer
>> filing suit against them ? an order which Spamhaus ignored ? is now
>> considering ordering ICANN to pull Spamhaus's domain records. While Gadi
>> Evron, whose blog posting is linked above, urges everyone to beat the
>> judge with a clue stick, a guest writer on his blog counsels much greater
>> restraint."
>>
>> http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/09/1825232&from =rss
>
> Spamhaus aren't blocking anything. US courts have no juridiction in
> the UK (despite what they think.)
>
> Spamhaus should just tell them to fuck off.
>

As a US citizen, I totally agree. It is time for the governance of the
Internet to fall under the UN.

I am shocked at the US courts for protecting a spammer, not to meantion that
in the UK, which is where Spamhaus is located, spamming is illegal. What
possible jurisdiction does that judge think he has?

I have heard that the judge is threatening to take away the domain name from
Spamhaus. I could not believe it.

Imhotep
Imhotep

Michael Heiming wrote:

> In comp.os.linux.security Huge <Huge [at] nowhere.much.invalid>:
>> On 2006-10-10, imhotep <imhotep [at] nospam.net> wrote:
>>> Perspectives on Spamhaus's Dilemma
>
>>> It is absolutely shameful that the US courts have chosen to protect a
>>> spammer and are trying to force Spamhaus into *NOT* blocking the
>>> spammer. Spamhaus is perfectly within their rights to block a known
>>> spamming company...afterall Spamhaus is in the UK where spamming is
>>> illegal...
>
>>> "The Illinois court that told Spamhaus to stop blocking the spammer
>>> filing suit against them ? an order which Spamhaus ignored ? is now
>>> considering ordering ICANN to pull Spamhaus's domain records. While Gadi
>>> Evron, whose blog posting is linked above, urges everyone to beat the
>>> judge with a clue stick, a guest writer on his blog counsels much
>>> greater restraint."
>
>>> http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/09/1825232&from =rss
>
>> Spamhaus aren't blocking anything. US courts have no juridiction in
>> the UK (despite what they think.)
>
> True, but the tld .org is handled from the US. The whole thing is
> a really sad said story. The US court should have never allowed
> to open the case against Spamhaus in the US. I just went to:
>
> http://www.spamhaus.org/donations/
>
> THANK YOU
>
> On behalf of the Spamhaus Team, thanks for your help!
>
> And made a little donation, would be great if others who use
> Spamhaus from SA or via other methods or/and benefit from their
> great work would do the same, to show our support for them!
>
> Doesn't have to be much, perhaps you have a few bucks on your
> paypal account flying around? But we should let them know about
> our support for their operations!
>
> Anyone else?
>


I'm in. This is just plain wrong...

Time for the governance of the Internet to belong to the UN...

Imhotep

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

On 2006-10-16, Leythos <void [at] nowhere.lan> wrote:
> In article <qbSdnVuUVvpsZq_YnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d [at] adelphia.com>,
> imhotep [at] nospam.net says...
>> As a US citizen, I totally agree. It is time for the governance of the
>> Internet to fall under the UN.
>
> The UN doesn't govern anything, it's a completely corrupt organization,
> ineffective at doing anything, and a complete failure.

Get the nurse to give you a new drool towel - that one's all soggy.

The ITU, which is an executive arm of the UN, governs a large number
of assignments of address spaces, including international dialling
codes (where did you think the "1" came from, bozo?), radio call signs
(where did you think the "W" and "K" came from, bozo?), international
country codes (where did you think ".us" came from, bozo?), aircraft
registration letters (where did you think the "N" came from, bozo?) and
doubtless many more things which I can't be arsed to point out to yet
another illiterate fucking American for whom "parochial" is a way
of life.

Assignment of Internet address spaces would be an ideal fit in the
ITU.

Now fuck off and die, eh?


--
"Other people are not your property."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

On 2006-10-16, Leythos <void [at] nowhere.lan> wrote:
> In article <egvoul$3j6$1 [at] apophis.demon.co.uk>, Huge [at] nowhere.much.invalid
> says...
>> On 2006-10-16, Leythos <void [at] nowhere.lan> wrote:
>> > In article <qbSdnVuUVvpsZq_YnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d [at] adelphia.com>,
>> > imhotep [at] nospam.net says...
>> >> As a US citizen, I totally agree. It is time for the governance of the
>> >> Internet to fall under the UN.
>> >
>> > The UN doesn't govern anything, it's a completely corrupt organization,
>> > ineffective at doing anything, and a complete failure.
>>
>> Get the nurse to give you a new drool towel - that one's all soggy.
>>
>> The ITU, which is an executive arm of the UN, governs a large number
>> of assignments of address spaces, including international dialling
>> codes (where did you think the "1" came from, bozo?), radio call signs
>> (where did you think the "W" and "K" came from, bozo?), international
>> country codes (where did you think ".us" came from, bozo?), aircraft
>> registration letters (where did you think the "N" came from, bozo?) and
>> doubtless many more things which I can't be arsed to point out to yet
>> another illiterate fucking American for whom "parochial" is a way
>> of life.
>
> And none of that would have worked without multiple groups, the US being
> one of the largest, doing it for the UN.

Sigh. The ITU is a co-ordinating body, fucktard.

>> Assignment of Internet address spaces would be an ideal fit in the
>> ITU.
>
> Wrong, it works quite well just the way it is.

Except that it doesn't.

>
>> Now fuck off and die, eh?
>
> Nice to see that you don't know how to respond without being immature.

So, you're a hypocrite as well as a bigotted moron.

*plonk*



--
"Other people are not your property."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

In article <egvoul$3j6$1 [at] apophis.demon.co.uk>, Huge wrote:
>
>The ITU, which is an executive arm of the UN, governs a large number
>of assignments of address spaces, including international dialling
>codes (where did you think the "1" came from, bozo?), radio call signs
>(where did you think the "W" and "K" came from, bozo?), international
>country codes (where did you think ".us" came from, bozo?), aircraft
>registration letters (where did you think the "N" came from, bozo?) and
>doubtless many more things which I can't be arsed to point out to yet
>another illiterate fucking American for whom "parochial" is a way
>of life.
>
Let's see here, "1" to dial phone number came into use in no later than
1905 and was instituted by the US phone companies of the time. W and K
for radio stations came in with the FRC (Federal Radio Commision) in 1927.
..us domain names...are virtually unknown. Does *anybody* use them? There's
not a single one in my bookmark file or browser history. N aircraft
registration letters were officially assigned in 1919. So, then, since the
UN goes back only to 1946, the only one it can even begin to plausibly
claim...is the failure.

Bozo.


--
Christopher Mattern

"Which one you figure tracked us?"
"The ugly one, sir."
"...Could you be more specific?"

In comp.security.misc Huge <Huge [at] nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2006-10-16, Leythos <void [at] nowhere.lan> wrote:
> > In article <qbSdnVuUVvpsZq_YnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d [at] adelphia.com>,
> > imhotep [at] nospam.net says...
> >> As a US citizen, I totally agree. It is time for the governance of the
> >> Internet to fall under the UN.
> >
> > The UN doesn't govern anything, it's a completely corrupt organization,
> > ineffective at doing anything, and a complete failure.

> Get the nurse to give you a new drool towel - that one's all soggy.

> The ITU, which is an executive arm of the UN, governs a large number
> of assignments of address spaces, including international dialling
> codes (where did you think the "1" came from, bozo?), radio call signs
> (where did you think the "W" and "K" came from, bozo?), international
> country codes (where did you think ".us" came from, bozo?), aircraft
> registration letters (where did you think the "N" came from, bozo?) and
> doubtless many more things which I can't be arsed to point out to yet
> another illiterate fucking American for whom "parochial" is a way
> of life.

Bzzt, wrong answer.

All that stuff is pre WWII.

The UN is post WWII and had nothing to do with any of it.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In article <i1kc04-am3.ln1 [at] mail.specsol.com>, jimp [at] specsol.spam.sux.com writes:
>In comp.security.misc Huge <Huge [at] nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2006-10-16, Leythos <void [at] nowhere.lan> wrote:
>> > In article <qbSdnVuUVvpsZq_YnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d [at] adelphia.com>,
>> > imhotep [at] nospam.net says...
>> >> As a US citizen, I totally agree. It is time for the governance of the
>> >> Internet to fall under the UN.
>> >
>> > The UN doesn't govern anything, it's a completely corrupt organization,
>> > ineffective at doing anything, and a complete failure.
>
>> Get the nurse to give you a new drool towel - that one's all soggy.
>
>> The ITU, which is an executive arm of the UN, governs a large number
>> of assignments of address spaces, including international dialling
>> codes (where did you think the "1" came from, bozo?), radio call signs
>> (where did you think the "W" and "K" came from, bozo?), international
>> country codes (where did you think ".us" came from, bozo?), aircraft
>> registration letters (where did you think the "N" came from, bozo?) and
>> doubtless many more things which I can't be arsed to point out to yet
>> another illiterate fucking American for whom "parochial" is a way
>> of life.
>
>Bzzt, wrong answer.
>
>All that stuff is pre WWII.
>
>The UN is post WWII and had nothing to do with any of it.
>
And your point is ? ICANN was only established in 1998.

However the situation with the ITU is slightly different in that the
ITU predates the UN as an international organisation by quite some time.
It was established as the International Telegraph Union in Paris on May 17,
1865 and is today the world's oldest international organisation.
It became a UN specialized agency on 15 October 1947.

It would make eminent sense for the body charged with co-ordinating the
internet's system of unique identifiers to become a specialized UN agency along
side the ITU, Universal Postal Union, International Monetary Fund,
World Bank, World Health Organisation etc


David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University



>--
>Jim Pennino
>
>Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Leythos wrote:
> In article <qbSdnVuUVvpsZq_YnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d [at] adelphia.com>,
> imhotep [at] nospam.net says...
>> As a US citizen, I totally agree. It is time for the governance of the
>> Internet to fall under the UN.
>
> The UN doesn't govern anything, it's a completely corrupt organization,
> ineffective at doing anything, and a complete failure.
>
>
>
The UN would/could be more effective if no country had a veto, including
the US.

--
----------------
Barton L. Phillips
Applied Technology Resources, Inc.
Tel: (818)652-9850
Web: http://www.applitec.com

syscjm [at] sumire.eng.sun.com (Chris Mattern) writes:

>Let's see here, "1" to dial phone number came into use in no later than
>1905 and was instituted by the US phone companies of the time. W and K
>for radio stations came in with the FRC (Federal Radio Commision) in 1927.
>.us domain names...are virtually unknown. Does *anybody* use them? There's
>not a single one in my bookmark file or browser history. N aircraft
>registration letters were officially assigned in 1919. So, then, since the
>UN goes back only to 1946, the only one it can even begin to plausibly
>claim...is the failure.

Really? There was no automated long distance calling in the US
until *after* WWII. (A novelty which existed before WWII in,
among others, Sweden, but only in Europe)

The use of numbers for Europe was codified in an international
standard by at least 1960 when much of Europe had automated long
distance (country to country); not so, in the US.

The "1" was not introduced until the 1964 world numbering plan;
most long distance calling in the US was probably still operator assisted
at the time.

Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.

"Barton L. Phillips" <barton [at] applitec.com> writes:

>The UN would/could be more effective if no country had a veto, including
>the US.

Quite; two of the reasons why the UN is less effective than it
could be is:

- the US continuous delinquency in paying its bills
- the abuse of veto power

Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.

Leythos schrieb:

>
> LOL, so you attack a poster, without knowing anything, and don't
> understand the UN, and then when you're wrong twice you plonk - typical
> of a troll.

Very obviously you have no clue what the UN is about

Thomas

On 16 Oct 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.security.firewalls, in article
<egvoul$3j6$1 [at] apophis.demon.co.uk>, Huge wrote:

>The ITU, which is an executive arm of the UN, governs a large number
>of assignments of address spaces, including international dialling
>codes (where did you think the "1" came from, bozo?), radio call signs
>(where did you think the "W" and "K" came from, bozo?),

Ask your teacher - W and K (and A) were assigned to the US over fifteen YEARS
BEFORE the United Nations was formed. And the dialing code '1' was in use
several years before the CCITT finally got around to sort of standardizing it.
Look it up - the proceedings are on the web if you can figure out how to
use a search engine.

>aircraft registration letters (where did you think the "N" came from, bozo?)

Obviously, you are quite unaware that they also predate the UN - in this
case by over well over twenty years, even pre-dating the League Of Nations.
Or haven't you seen pictures in your colouring book of the Dutch, Belgian,
and French aircraft flying between the continent and London before the peace
conference at Versailles in 1919. And you haven't seen pictures of the
de Havilland DH-4A of "Aerial Transport And Travel" in the same year? As
you are so clueless, let me explain that "Aerial Transport And Travel"
was one of the original airline companies in the UK that were eventually
merged into "Imperial Airways" in the 1920s, which later became BOAC -
probably another company you've never heard of.

>and doubtless many more things which I can't be arsed to point out to yet
>another illiterate fucking American for whom "parochial" is a way of life.

Maybe in ten years when you get out of kindergarten, you will have heard of
this thing called google, where you could have looked this up. But I suspect
you will still be to stupid to know how to use it.

>Assignment of Internet address spaces would be an ideal fit in the ITU.

Oh, you mean like assigning one set of letters for radio call signs, and a
completely different set for aircraft registrations - or are you lacking
the ability to look those up and compare them.

You are the complete ass, and obviously need to FOAD like a good troll.
Please stop wasting bandwidth before mommy discovers you've been using
her computer so display your lack of even a single brain cell.

Old guy

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Leythos wrote:
> In article <4533c574$0$4519$e4fe514c [at] news.xs4all.nl>, Casper.Dik [at] Sun.COM
> says...
>> "Barton L. Phillips" <barton [at] applitec.com> writes:
>>
>>> The UN would/could be more effective if no country had a veto, including
>>> the US.
>> Quite; two of the reasons why the UN is less effective than it
>> could be is:
>>
>> - the US continuous delinquency in paying its bills
>
> LOL, take a look at the funding for the UN, see who pays the most.
>
>> - the abuse of veto power
>
> Yea, like anything that Chavez wants should not be vetoed.
>
If the majority of the world wants to follow Chavez then it is our own
fault because we have done something very very wrong. We are just part
of the world not the entire world. The sun does not revolve around the
US or GWB and team.

--
----------------
Barton L. Phillips
Applied Technology Resources, Inc.
Tel: (818)652-9850
Web: http://www.applitec.com