Welcome:
Login
|
Sign Up
|
About CircleID
Follow:
|
|
|
Remember the old email hoax about Hillary Clinton pushing for email taxation? When we first heard AOL's plans for Goodmail today, we thought maybe the hoax had re-surfaced and a few industry reporters got hooked by it. But alas, this tax plan seems to be true. AOL has long held the leading standard in email whitelisting. Every email sender who cares about delivery has tried to keep their email reputation high so that they could earn placement on AOL's coveted Enhanced Whitelist. Now, AOL may be saying that those standards don't matter as much as a postage stamp when it comes to email delivery.
A student at a well-known US university wrote me and asked whether, given the huge national interest in getting the industry to unite behind (at least) one format, did I think that the FTC should've played a stronger role in pushing the industry to adopt an authentication format? I said: Nope. Part of the reason it's taking so long to agree on a standard is that the process is infested with academic theoreticians who are more interested in arguing about hypotheticals and pushing their pet spam solutions than in doing something useful...
It's no surprise that Google has been sued again for trademark infringement, but the basis of this lawsuit is surprising. Rather than another lawsuit over the sale of trademarked keywords to deliver ads (along the lines of the GEICO, American Blinds, Rescuecom and JTH Tax cases, or the dozens of international lawsuits), this lawsuit is based on a Blogspot blog URL. Because of its comparative novelty, this lawsuit raises some complex and unsettled legal issues.
Internet domain names are truly bizarre. There is nothing especially remarkable about them from a technical perspective, but from a social and political perspective they are all sorts of fun. We can have arguments over control of the DNS root, arguments over whether names are property, arguments over innate rights to specific names, arguments over a registrar's right (or lack thereof) to exploit unregistered names for private gain, and many more arguments besides. In this article, I'd like to explore the argument-space rather than defend any particular position in it. In so doing, I hope to illuminate some novel (or under-emphasised) perspectives on the matter.
There is considerable coverage this morning (or this evening in Tunis) on the last minute WSIS deal struck yesterday. The gist of the coverage rightly reports that the U.S. emerged with the compromise they were looking for as the delegates agreed to retain ICANN and the ultimate U.S. control that comes with it (note that there is a lot in the WSIS statement that may ultimately prove important but that is outside the Internet governance issue including the attention paid to cybercrime, spam, data protection, and e-commerce). This outcome begs the questions -- what happened? And, given the obvious global split leading up to Tunis, what changed to facilitate this deal?
I'm in Tunis at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), where the biggest debate is over the future of "Internet Governance." The final text for this was agreed upon about 30 minutes ago. The two quick sounds bites are that (1) the US and the US based Internet Corporation for Domain Names and Numbers (ICANN) retain, for now, control over the most important aspects of the global Internet Domain Name System (DNS), and (2) the conversation over this issue and a surprisingly broader governance agenda is continuing, under the United Nations.
Last week the DMA announced with considerable fanfare that their members should all use e-mail authentication. DMA members send a lot of bulk e-mail, but not much that would be considered spam by any normal metric. (Altria's Gevalia Kaffee is one of the few exceptions.) Their main problem is their legitimate bulk mail, sent in large quantities from fixed sources, getting caught by ISPs spam filters. That happens to be one problem for which path authentication schemes like SPF and Sender ID are useful, since they make it easier to add known fixed source mailers to a recipient ISP's whitelist, and that's just what AOL and probably other big ISPs use it for. While the DMA may be implying that this is a virtuous move, in reality it's something that their members are doing anyway for straightforward business purposes.
One of fastest growing trends of electronic communications is digital identity. The simplest way of establishing digital identity is to get a domain name and create a web site and email accounts. While this might have been a fairly complex undertaking some ten years ago, today it is a trivial matter. So trivial in fact that spammers and phishers can ply their trade with very low costs of entry. These low cost of entry have made the Internet a commodity business as traffic is handled in the aggregate and competitive pricing has made being an ISP a difficult business model. It also has created aggressive growth and adoption curves. The Internet is also the lowest common denominator...
On Thursday the 22nd, Robert Braver, an Oklahoma ISP owner who is a long time activist against both spam and junk faxes, received a default judgment of over $10 million against high profile spammer Robert Soloway and his company Newport Internet Marketing. Soloway has frequently been cited as one of the ten largest spammers in the world.
You all remember Sitefinder don't you? According to The Register, CentralNic , owner of a number of popular domains including uk.com and us.com, has added wildcard A records to .uk.com. Cue the usual round of sniping about Internet stability (with which, as you will see, I agree). The question is, given the difference in scale (.com and .net are huge; .uk.com is quite small) will anyone notice? And does it matter? Certainly CentralNic seems to think the small scale of their domains excuses or at least mitigates the Internet stability side effects of their ploy.
A World-Renowned Source for Internet Developments. Serving Since 2002.