The noun Spam is a form of tinned luncheon meat. Unsolicited (bulk etc) e-mail is spam. However you may feel about said tinned luncheon meat, it would be (and has been) considered libellous to link it to spam. James ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sean Finn" <sean§teknol.com.au> To: <dns§lists.auda.org.au> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 2:00 PM Subject: RE: [DNS] DNS and Spam > SPAM: > > Woolworths crap in your letterbox? heck no, its geographical blanket junk > mail, not targeted. NOT SPAM. > > Win a house competitions with your name on it, targeted letters sent by Aus > Post? Not spam, they got your details from a competition to win a car for > free in a supermarket or something. NOT SPAM. > > E.G. Company collects your *personal details* and sends targeted mail to you > via Aus.Post, when you DIDN't Sign up for a competition etc, and didn't > specifically agree to receive promotional material? > SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM > SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM > SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM > SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM > SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM > (Ahem). > > > > My Summary: > > Modern SPAM is Unsolicited Mail. Wether it be Electroinic or Traditional. > Spamming through a server sure costs money, but i think you are referring to > the verb SPAM, rather than the Noun Spam. > > SPAM(Noun) Unsolicited mail wether electronic or terrestrial. > SPAM(Verb) To relay mail through an unwilling third party's mail server, Or > to send terrestrial mail-outs using someone else's bulk-order barcode. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .me hands rod his ABN & passes .1c onto tax department as GST. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Discount Domain Name Services [mailto:rod§ddns.com.au] > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 1:44 PM > To: dns§lists.auda.org.au > Subject: RE: [DNS] DNS and Spam > > > Non electronic spam! Ian what is your understanding of spam! > Have you or your company ever been spammed due to an open proxy??(Do you > know what that is?) Have you ever had to pick up a $550 data bill due to > someone finding a hole in your system due to some outage or whatever(Do you > know what that is). This is the true meaning of spam stealing data from web > hosting companies or ISP's. Getting a few emails that are unsolicited use > something like spam assassin to filter out that, but stealing data (Spamming > data) is a crime that is no different to shop lifting. To call sending out > advertising via the mail spam is ridiculous that is like calling the > woolworths brochure placed in your letterbox non electronic spam. I > wholeheartly agree with the COC and how it has made the industry more > accountable but you cannot stop shonky operators, witness the bank scams of > only a couple of weeks ago. Education not legislation. > 1.1 cents worth > Rod Keys > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo§auda.org.au] > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 1:03 PM > To: DNS List > Subject: [DNS] DNS and Spam > > > > > Ian, > > With respect, I do not agree with your analysis but do thank you for > raising the issue which is an important one. > > " If auDA's and the ACCC's regulatory frameworks were effective, > inappropriate market behaviour should, by and large, cease." > > It has, by and large, ceased. In the last 12 months the only major > problems have been with companies 'outside' the industry (ie not > registrars or resellers) and have involved the same group of people. I > am not suggesting that the current situation with DNA is either > satisfactory or acceptable. It is not and it is being dealt with. > > auDA does not rush to the DNS list or media flagging the action we are > taking in response to 'scams'. It would be inappropriate for us to do > so. However, we do (often in consultation with ACCC) take action as has > been evidenced by the successful proceedings against IRA (taken by ACCC) > and ING and NetRegister/Rafferty (taken by auDA). > > I think it is important to understand the meaning of the words being > used so that we can be clear what we are discussing in this debate. > > You use the word 'industry' in several places in your email below. What > do you mean by this? Do you mean those dealing with domain names in .au > or those dealing with domain names generally? There is an important > distinction here. For example, you will be aware that the vast majority > of the DNA mail out is offering names in the gTLD spaces not in .au. > > You say " Indications are that these frameworks are, in part, > ineffective - too cumbersome, slow, costly". Could you please clarify > what frameworks you are referring to? > > You refer to desired outcomes not being achieved according to some > community standards. What are the desired outcomes and what are the > community standards to which you refer? > > You refer to ineffective deterrent and enforcement mechanisms. Which of > the deterrent and enforcement mechanisms do you believe to be > ineffective? > > I look forward to your response so that I may more properly answer the > questions you are raising. > > Best Regards, > > Chris Disspain > CEO - auDA > ceo§auda.org.au > www.auda.org.au > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Johnston [mailto:ian.johnston§infobrokers.com.au] > Sent: Friday, 25 July 2003 9:43 AM > To: dns§lists.auda.org.au > Cc: jon§jonlawrence.com > Subject: RE: [DNS] DNS and Spam > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kim Davies [mailto:kim§cynosure.com.au] > > Sent: 25 July 2003 3:11 AM > > To: dns§lists.auda.org.au > > Subject: [DNS] DNS and Spam > > Sorry to take things off on a tangent a little.. > > Kim, your not heading off on a tangent as I see it - you're spot on. > > I was about the post the following, in response to Jon Lawrence and > Skeeve > Stevens (see their emails below), when I saw your email. > > -- > > The following comments and opinions are put forward with a view to > advancing > debate - I'm not wedded to them. > > If auDA's and the ACCC's regulatory frameworks were effective, > inappropriate > market behaviour should, by and large, cease. > > Indications are that these frameworks are, in part, ineffective - too > cumbersome, slow, costly ... That is, they are not achieving desired > outcomes, > according to some community standards. That's what I hear many in the > industry > saying, and that's what I observe. > > Ultimately consumers of domain name services meet the cost of market and > (any) > regulatory failure. Ineffective deterrent and enforcement mechanisms > impose > costs on auDA, ACCC, bona fide industry players and consumers. > Consumers and > taxpayers fund these mechanisms. > > With continuing market and regulatory failure - including failure due to > the > limitations of the regulatory framework(s) - the case for further > government > intervention seems compelling, unless the domain name industry / > co-regulators > can demonstrate that they can effectively deal with inappropriate market > behaviour. > > I'm tending to the view that national legislation is probably required. > For > example, consideration might be given to addressing issues in the > context of the > (electronic) spam legislation announced yesterday by the Minister for > Communications, Information Technolgy and the Arts > <http://www.dcita.gov.au/Article/0,,0_1-2_15-4_115938,00.html>. > > A case could be made for the legislation to also deal with > non-electronic spam > relating to domain names. Indeed, the case can be made for the > legislation to > address the domain name industry's and consumers' concerns. > > I'm away from email till much later today. > > Ian > > > -- > Ian Johnston, Policy Consultant > Small Enterprise Telecommunications Centre (SETEL) > www.setel.com.au mailto:ian.johnston§setel.com.au > 02 6251 7848 (B) 02 6251 7835 (F) 0413 990 112 (M) > > SETEL is a national small business consumer association > advancing the interest of Australian small business > as telecommunications and e-commerce consumers > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jon Lawrence [mailto:jon§jonlawrence.com] > > Sent: 24 July 2003 7:56 PM > > To: dns§lists.auda.org.au > > Subject: RE: [DNS] Domain Names Australia - How to stop them > > > > > > If they're registering the names as a retail client, how do you > identify > > the order as coming from DNA? Block their email address? They'll just > use > > a different one. Block their IP address? Ditto. > > > > It's my understanding that the appropriate manner in which to deal > with > > issues such as this where the party involved is operating outside of > > a contractual > > relationship with auDA is under the relevant provisions of the Trade > Practices > > Act, and/or state-based trading standards legislation. I believe that > auDA > > is already pursuing this matter in conjunction with the ACCC. > > > > jon > > > > >-- Original Message -- > > >Reply-To: dns§lists.auda.org.au > > >From: "Skeeve Stevens" <skeeve§skeeve.org> > > >To: <dns§lists.auda.org.au> > > >Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 19:31:35 +1000 > > >Subject: [DNS] Domain Names Australia - How to stop them > > > > > >Ok. Am I completely on the wrong track here. or isn't it quite easy > to > > >stop people like Domain Names Australia. > > > > > >When something happens like their current campaign, auDA should issue > an > > >order to all current registrars, including AusRegistry, to not accept > > >any more domain applications from DNA. > > > > > >That way, any money they do collect, is simply classified as fraud, > > >since they haven't actually provided a service (i.e. Domain Name). > > > > > >Maybe auDA needs to update policies and their registrar agreements, > so > > >that they can issue a 'Block' when someone launches a campaign like > > >this. > > > > > >Is this on the right track? > > > > > >If you block their ability to register domains. then they are simply > out > > >of business.. How easy is that? > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________________ > > >Skeeve Stevens, RHCE Email: skeeve§skeeve.org > > >Website: www.skeeve.org - Telephone: (0414) 753 383 > > >Address: P.O Box 1035, Epping, NSW, 1710, Australia > > > > > >eIntellego - skeeve§eintellego.net - www.eintellego.net > > >_______________________________________________________ > > >Si vis pacem, para bellum > > -- > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kim Davies [mailto:kim§cynosure.com.au] > > Sent: 25 July 2003 3:11 AM > > To: dns§lists.auda.org.au > > Subject: [DNS] DNS and Spam > > > > > > Sorry to take things off on a tangent a little.. > > > > I haven't been following recent spam developments in Australia lately, > > but the flurry of articles in the media has been hard to miss... > > > > One article that caught my eye was at > > http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php?id=589997653&fp=16&fpid=0 > > which reads in part: > > > > Notably, the legislation also contains major concessions to > > the direct marketing industry, who will be allowed to continue > > to harvest Australian e-mail addresses on .com.au sites on the > > Internet, essentially for the purpose of business to business > > marketing. > > > > Is this true? Surely this represents a fundamental loophole and > > misunderstanding of the role of second level domains. > > > > Having an email address end in .com.au does not at all signify that > the > > users of that domain are commercial enterprises. On the contrary, many > > (most?) ISPs in Australia hand out email addresses under this 2LD to > all > > their customers. > > > > Secondly, such practice seemingly legitimises spamming .com.au domain > > holders for the purposes of domain name renewal. > > > > I sincerely hope this is either an oversimplification or the author > got > > it wrong. I'd hate to see .com.au die off because it became some > > legitimated spammer refuge. > > > > kim > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > --- > > List policy, unsubscribing and archives => > http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/ > > Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of > the > > author, further information at the above URL. (336 subscribers.) > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > --- > List policy, unsubscribing and archives => > http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/ > Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the > > author, further information at the above URL. (336 subscribers.) > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - > List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/ > Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the > author, further information at the above URL. (336 subscribers.) > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - > List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/ > Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the > author, further information at the above URL. (336 subscribers.) > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - > List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/ > Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the > author, further information at the above URL. (336 subscribers.) >Received on Fri Oct 03 2003 - 00:00:00 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:07 UTC