<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga-abuse] RE: RE: [csr-1123.170270] Re: [ga] RE: support@bulkregister.com
Excuse me, this involves a failing bulkregister.com email address and not a
domain name. the domain name is yours, not NSI's.
Jeez, how incompetent are you guys? Y'all can't even read! Your email system
is spitting these "not found" messages, in response to email sent to those
bulkregister.com accounts. I am sending you copies of the two latest ones,
from the ICANN DNSO GA mailer list. Someone, in YOUR organization has
registered one bogus mailing address with that mailer-list. Your mail
systems are bouncing the message, not the DNS.
--
got root?
--
R O E L A N D M J M E Y E R
Managing Director
Morgan Hill Software Company
tel: +1 925 373 3954
cel: +1 925 352 3615
fax: +1 925 373 9781
http://www.mhsc.com
|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: BulkRegister CSR <> <csrsupport@mail1.bulkregister.com >
|> [mailto:csrsupport@mail1.bulkregister.com]
|> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 6:03 AM
|> To: Roeland Meyer
|> Subject: RE: RE: [csr-1123.170270] Re: [ga] RE:
|> support@bulkregister.com
|>
|>
|>
|> Dear Client,
|>
|> The domain name you are refering to is with NSI. Please
|> contact NSI over this matter or the hosting company to
|> resolve email issues.
|>
|> If you need further assistance please send me a reply.
|>
|> Sincerely,
|>
|> Will Neff
|> BulkRegister.com
|> Support
|>
|> Roeland Meyer wrote:
|>
|>
|> >This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does
|> not understand
|> >this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
|> >
|> >------_=_NextPart_000_01C175DD.0519D480
|> >Content-Type: text/plain
|> >
|> >There are two email addresses, on the DNSO mail lists, that are not
|> >resolving. Since the problem is adequately described in the
|> complaint, I
|> >suggest that you actually read the complaint before asking
|> questions. Or,
|> >are you one of those incompetent mail admins I was refering to?
|> >
|> >RTFM d00d!
|> >---
|> >got root?
|> >
|> >|> -----Original Message-----
|> >|> From: BulkRegister CSR <> <csrsupport@mail1.bulkregister.com >
|> >|> [mailto:csrsupport@mail1.bulkregister.com]
|> >|> Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2001 10:56 AM
|> >|> To: Jeff Williams; Roeland Meyer; \\\"\'DNSO Listadmin\'\\\"
|> >|> Subject: RE: [csr-1123.170270] Re: [ga] RE:
|> support@bulkregister.com
|> >|>
|> >|>
|> >|>
|> >|> Dear Client:
|> >|>
|> >|> Thank you for contacting BulkRegister.com.
|> >|>
|> >|> Could you please explain the issue? We will try to resolve
|> >|> the issue as soon as we can.
|> >|>
|> >|> If you have any further questions, please feel free to
|> write to us.
|> >|> Thank you again for choosing BulkRegister.com.
|> >|>
|> >|> Sincerely,
|> >|> Cit
|> >|> Customer Service
|> >|> BulkRegister.com
|> >|> -------------------------------------------------------------
|> >-----------------------------
|> >|>
|> >|> Jeff Williams wrote:
|> >|>
|> >|>
|> >|> >Roeland and all assembly members,
|> >|> >
|> >|> > I believe that bulkregister.com is a ICANN Accredited
|> Registrar.
|> >|> >It would seem that after 7 days now that the ICANN
|> Staff would be
|> >|> >getting off it\\\'s collective butts and giving them a call
|> >|> to get this
|> >|> >pesky problem corrected by now. After all ICANN has oversight
|> >|> >authority and responsibility for it\\\'s registrars
|> doesn\\\'t it?
|> >|> >
|> >|> >
|> >|> >Roeland Meyer wrote:
|> >|> >
|> >|> >> I will accord bulkregister.com the same order of patience
|> >|> I get from every
|> >|> >> other stiff-necked root out there, if MHSC systems were
|> >|> as badly FUBAR\\\'d as
|> >|> >> bulkregister.com. Since I also get spam from
|> >|> bulkregister.com, I have just
|> >|> >> entered their *.bulkregister.com into my mail hub\\\'s
|> >|> filter system.
|> >|> >> bulkregister.com is now black-holed at MHSC.COM.
|> >|> >>
|> >|> >> Every message that I have sent to the GA list today has
|> >|> resulted in a
|> >|> >> response from support@bulkregister.com. Since they are a
|> >|> public registrar, I
|> >|> >> expect them to be running a 24x7 NOC. This is
|> >|> inconsistent with 24 hours of
|> >|> >> mail system trouble. At the very least, they could have
|> >|> taken their system
|> >|> >> off-line rather than be a public nuisance. Howling dogs
|> >|> either get silenced
|> >|> >> by their owners or shot by their neighbors.
|> >|> >>
|> >|> >> BTW, this message is also a test. I should be blissfully
|> >|> unaware, this time,
|> >|> >> of complaints from support@bulkregister.com. There\\\'s
|> >|> enough noise on this
|> >|> >> list without dealing with slacker/incompetent mail
|> >|> admins. 24 hours of that
|> >|> >> is more than enough and I certainly won\\\'t wait 7 days.
|> >|> >>
|> >|> >> |> -----Original Message-----
|> >|> >> |> From: DNSO Listadmin [mailto:DNSO.Listadmin@dnso.org]
|> >|> >> |> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 10:39 AM
|> >|> >> |>
|> >|> >> |> Roeland,
|> >|> >> |>
|> >|> >> |> There is no support@bulkregister.com in ga list.
|> >|> >> |> There are two e-mail addresses from bulkregister.com
|> >|> on ga list,
|> >|> >> |> and plenty of complaints that their mail site is
|> in trouble.
|> >|> >> |>
|> >|> >> |> To remove any e-mail address from a list for
|> technical reasons,
|> >|> >> |> we need either an emergency, or a persistent
|> delivery reports
|> >|> >> |> for at least 7 days.
|> >|> >> |>
|> >|> >> |> Maybe Thanksgiving and staff on the weekend ? Be patient.
|> >|> >> |>
|> >|> >> |> DNSO Listadmin
|> >|> >> |>
|> >
|> >
|> >------_=_NextPart_000_01C175DD.0519D480
|> >Content-Type: message/rfc822
|> >Content-Description: RE: [csr-1123.170270] Re: [ga] RE:
|> support@bulkregister.com
|> >
|> >Message-ID:
|> <200111241856.fAOIuGJ22905@bulkregister.hostingventures.com>
|> >From: \"BulkRegister CSR <> <csrsupport@mail1.bulkregister.com >\"
|> > <csrsupport@mail1.bulkregister.com>
|> >To: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>, Roeland Meyer
|> > <rmeyer@mhsc.com>, \"\\\\\\\"\'DNSO
|> Listadmin\'\\\\\\\"\" <DNSO.Listadmin@dnso.org>
|> >Subject: RE: [csr-1123.170270] Re: [ga] RE:
|> support@bulkregister.com
|> >Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 10:56:16 -0800
|> >MIME-Version: 1.0
|> >X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
|> >Content-Type: text/plain
|> >
|> >
|> >Dear Client:
|> >
|> >Thank you for contacting BulkRegister.com.
|> >
|> >Could you please explain the issue? We will try to resolve
|> >the issue as soon as we can.
|> >
|> >If you have any further questions, please feel free to write to us.
|> >Thank you again for choosing BulkRegister.com.
|> >
|> >Sincerely,
|> >Cit
|> >Customer Service
|> >BulkRegister.com
|> >------------------------------------------------------------
|> ----------------
|> >--------------
|> >
|> >Jeff Williams wrote:
|> >
|> >
|> >>Roeland and all assembly members,
|> >>
|> >> I believe that bulkregister.com is a ICANN Accredited Registrar.
|> >>It would seem that after 7 days now that the ICANN Staff would be
|> >>getting off it\\\'s collective butts and giving them a
|> call to get this
|> >>pesky problem corrected by now. After all ICANN has oversight
|> >>authority and responsibility for it\\\'s registrars doesn\\\'t it?
|> >>
|> >>
|> >>Roeland Meyer wrote:
|> >>
|> >>> I will accord bulkregister.com the same order of
|> patience I get from
|> >every
|> >>> other stiff-necked root out there, if MHSC systems were
|> as badly FUBAR\\\'d
|> >as
|> >>> bulkregister.com. Since I also get spam from
|> bulkregister.com, I have
|> >just
|> >>> entered their *.bulkregister.com into my mail hub\\\'s
|> filter system.
|> >>> bulkregister.com is now black-holed at MHSC.COM.
|> >>>
|> >>> Every message that I have sent to the GA list today has
|> resulted in a
|> >>> response from support@bulkregister.com. Since they are a public
|> >registrar, I
|> >>> expect them to be running a 24x7 NOC. This is
|> inconsistent with 24 hours
|> >of
|> >>> mail system trouble. At the very least, they could have
|> taken their
|> >system
|> >>> off-line rather than be a public nuisance. Howling dogs
|> either get
|> >silenced
|> >>> by their owners or shot by their neighbors.
|> >>>
|> >>> BTW, this message is also a test. I should be blissfully
|> unaware, this
|> >time,
|> >>> of complaints from support@bulkregister.com. There\\\'s
|> enough noise on
|> >this
|> >>> list without dealing with slacker/incompetent mail
|> admins. 24 hours of
|> >that
|> >>> is more than enough and I certainly won\\\'t wait 7 days.
|> >>>
|> >>> |> -----Original Message-----
|> >>> |> From: DNSO Listadmin [mailto:DNSO.Listadmin@dnso.org]
|> >>> |> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 10:39 AM
|> >>> |>
|> >>> |> Roeland,
|> >>> |>
|> >>> |> There is no support@bulkregister.com in ga list.
|> >>> |> There are two e-mail addresses from bulkregister.com
|> on ga list,
|> >>> |> and plenty of complaints that their mail site is in trouble.
|> >>> |>
|> >>> |> To remove any e-mail address from a list for
|> technical reasons,
|> >>> |> we need either an emergency, or a persistent delivery reports
|> >>> |> for at least 7 days.
|> >>> |>
|> >>> |> Maybe Thanksgiving and staff on the weekend ? Be patient.
|> >>> |>
|> >>> |> DNSO Listadmin
|> >>> |>
|> >>> --
|> >>> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
|> >>> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
|> >>> (\\\"unsubscribe ga\\\" in the body of the message).
|> >>> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
|> >>
|> >>Regards,
|> >>--
|> >>Jeffrey A. Williams
|> >>Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
|> >>CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
|> >>Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
|> >>E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
|> >>Contact Number: 972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
|> >>Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
|> >>
|> >>
|> >>
|> >>Sincerely,
|> >
|> >Cit
|> >Customer Service
|> >BulkRegister.com
|> >
|> >------_=_NextPart_000_01C175DD.0519D480--
|> >
|> >
|> >
|>
Error: You are emailing to BR: , however this address doesn't exist.
X-POP3-Rcpt: bulk@mail1.bulkregister.com
>Received: from dnso.dnso.org (dnso.dnso.org [192.134.4.239])
> by mail1.bulkregister.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA21902;
> Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:53:14 -0500
>Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
> by dnso.dnso.org (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) id KAA28492;
> Mon, 26 Nov 2001 10:14:24 +0100 (MET)
>Received: from condor.mhsc.com ([216.27.184.246])
> by dnso.dnso.org (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA28488
> for <ga@dnso.org>; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 10:14:21 +0100 (MET)
>Received: by condor.mhsc.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
> id <X34M3GAL>; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 01:15:28 -0800
>Message-ID: <EA9368A5B1010140ADBF534E4D32C72806A068@condor.mhsc.com>
>From: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
>To: "'McMeikan, Andrew'" <McMeikanA@logica.com>,
> "'Joop Teernstra'"
> <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>, DannyYounger@cs.com
>Cc: ga@dnso.org
>Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus & Names Council Task Forces
>Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 01:15:21 -0800
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
>Content-Type: text/plain
>Sender: owner-ga@dnso.org
>Precedence: bulk
>
>This might even work if;
>1 There was a legal entity to trak this to
>2 The bank (preferably trust) account was tracable to this legal entity
>3 we could review the bylaws of this legal entity
>
>Otherwise, it's someone's personal account for all we know. How do we know
>that the mony's getting to where we think it's going, for the uses
intended?
>
>For three years I've asked this question from every nacent organization. I
>made an issue of it with the IDNO and I've recently mentioned it to the
TLDA
>(the TLDA has such account). The TLDA is much more likely to get my
>financial support than some unknown account that isn't tracable to an
>organization, that guarantees use of funds.
>
>|> -----Original Message-----
>|> From: McMeikan, Andrew [mailto:McMeikanA@logica.com]
>|> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 9:45 PM
>|> To: 'Joop Teernstra'; DannyYounger@cs.com
>|> Cc: ga@dnso.org
>|> Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus & Names Council Task Forces
>|>
>|>
>|> If any individual feels that they wish to contribute or put
>|> some money in
>|> 'the hat' to be used by an Individuals Constituancy, here is
>|> where the hat
>|> is
>|> http://www.e-gold.com/pub-bal.asp?pubid=313216
>|>
>|> to put your bit in http://two-cents-worth.com/?313216&EG
>|>
>|> If your dying to show support and for whatever reason don't
>|> use e-gold then
>|> paypal to me at andrewm@engineer.com and once cleared I will
>|> put it in
>|> (minus paypals cut).
>|>
>|> While I don't think that Individuals should have to cough up
>|> lots of money
>|> to have a voice, I think that having a slush fund to get
>|> that voice heard
>|> better is a good idea.
>|>
>|> I think that a similar fund for the GA should exist, but
>|> thats better left
>|> to someone else as I have a very strong individualistic bias ;)
>|>
>|> cya, Andrew...
>|>
>|> -----Original Message-----
>|> From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:terastra@terabytz.co.nz]
>|> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 12:32 PM
>|> To: DannyYounger@cs.com
>|> Cc: ga@dnso.org
>|> Subject: Re: [ga] Consensus & Names Council Task Forces
>|>
>|>
>|> At 14:55 25/11/01 -0500, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
>|>
>|> >In the three years that an individuals constituency has
>|> been discussed, has
>|> >anyone even bothered to raise the necessary funds required for
>|> participation?
>|>
>|> For the record www.democracy.org.nz/idno/financial.hm
>|>
>|> > Of course not, that would imply responsibility and a
>|> true commitment to
>|> a
>|> >cause.
>|>
>|> It does.
>--
>This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
Error: You are emailing to BR: , however this address doesn't exist.
X-POP3-Rcpt: bulk@mail1.bulkregister.com
>Received: from dnso.dnso.org (dnso.dnso.org [192.134.4.239])
> by mail1.bulkregister.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA21865;
> Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:53:12 -0500
>Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
> by dnso.dnso.org (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) id LAA28644;
> Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:51:46 +0100 (MET)
>Received: from condor.mhsc.com ([216.27.184.246])
> by dnso.dnso.org (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA28640
> for <ga@dnso.org>; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:51:44 +0100 (MET)
>Received: by condor.mhsc.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
> id <X34M3GA4>; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 02:52:50 -0800
>Message-ID: <EA9368A5B1010140ADBF534E4D32C72806A069@condor.mhsc.com>
>From: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
>To: "'DPF'" <david@farrar.com>, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>
>Cc: "[ga]" <ga@dnso.org>
>Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO Constituency Structure
>Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 02:52:42 -0800
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
>Content-Type: text/plain
>Sender: owner-ga@dnso.org
>Precedence: bulk
>
>|> From: DPF [mailto:david@farrar.com]
>|> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 1:56 AM
>|>
>|> On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 21:05:28 -0500, "Gomes, Chuck"
>|> <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
>|>
>|> >As I have communicated before, in person in GA meetings and
>|> on this list, I
>|> >believe that a new constituency should organize itself and
>|> demonstrate
>|> >strong representativeness of the community involved and
>|> then submit its
>|> >proposal for recognition. Just because the idea of an individuals
>|> >constituency makes sense to many of us, that is not enough
>|> to approve it.
>
>|> This sounds reasonable but in practice this sets barriers that were
>|> not demanded of any of the existing constituencies. What % of ISPs
>|> take part in the ISP constituency - I would say 0.1%.
>
>It only sounds reasonable on the surface. None of the existing
>constituencies had to meet these requirements. Let's apply these criteria
to
>the existing constituencies and see how well they fare.
>
>|> What % of businesses take part in business constituency - I'd say
>|> 0.0001%.
>
>That's probably a high estimnate.
>
>|> Add onto that the huge resource limitations any individual's
>|> constituency will have compared to businesses and organisations and
>|> the playing field is not merely uneven - it is titled at around 89.9
>|> degrees.
>
>I disagree. IMHO, the existing constituencies couldn't meet these
standards,
>even today, after they've existed for the past few years. How many of them
>even have a bank account and budget (2, maybe)? Also, don't forget the
>revenue requirements.
>
>|> What is wrong with doing what basically happened to the other seven
>|> constituencies. Approve the concept in principle and then you will
>|> find members and structure will come easily. Also one could assert
>|> that as a constituency can change its charter at will from that
>|> initially approved why worry about what is there at the moment of
>|> application as it could change the next day?
>
>As a practical matter, I don't think this'll fly either. No matter what
fiat
>is employed, one cannot call a declaration a consensus. Also, you're simply
>not going to get donations when ICANN BoD gets the money and electively
>doles it out, after paying its own expnses first. And then there's the GA
>problem, who's going to put money into a group that doesn't even have a
>vote, let alone one that is recognised?
>
>|> >I personally think that a legitimate proposal that is
>|> backed up by a solid
>|> >organizational structure and clear evidence of fairly broad
>|> representation
>|> >from the involved community would be hard to deny even by
>|> those who may
>|> >philosophically oppose such a constituency.
>|>
>|> I agree and would like to see this happen. However it is pretty hard
>|> to motivate individuals to spend the hundreds of hours needed and to
>|> donate the thousands of dollars also needed on something
>|> which doesn't
>|> even have any helpful encouragement from ICANN - just more barriers.
>
>Actually, all we have to date is active discouragement. The money and
effort
>is guaranteed to be flushed down the particular rat-hole. There is only the
>hope that the ICANN BoD will relent and the track-record supports an
>expectation that nothing will be done.
>
>|> What is wrong with recognising what we all know that there is a huge
>|> gaping hole in the non representation of individuals in the DNSO,
>|> approve a constituency in principle and set some minimum
>|> benchmarks in
>|> terms of membership, representativeness and funding it has
>|> to achieve.
>|> You do that and I'll happily spend hundreds of hours and a
>|> fair amount
>|> of my own money making such a constituency happen, as will many
>|> others.
>
>Actually, many of us already have.
>
>|> >As I understand the bylaws, a proposal from the board is
>|> allowable, but it
>|> >certainly does not seem to be forthcoming. So sitting
>|> around waiting for
>|> >this seems futile. It seems smarter to self-organize. I say that
>|> >understanding the enormity of the task which brings me to the ALSC
>|> >recommendations. The users SO may be the most realistic way of
>|> >accomplishing the objectives related to an individuals constituency.
>
>|> >I like the concept of a Users SO, a Producers SO and a
>|> Developers SO like
>|> >the ALSC proposed, although I have not particularly fond of the name
>|> >"developers" as applied to the ASO and PSO.
>
>Such a plan has no more validity than the existing plan. Any bets as to
>which existing personnel become the new gatekeepers? Under this taxonomy,
>there are no available pure populations, as I stated before. Also, I don't
>understand the developers SO. Developers of networks are not developers of
>systems, most of the time. I don't see too many IT shops developing device
>drivers for NICs, or protocol stacks. Yet, they develop software. If that
is
>not what was meant by Developers SO, then I have just made my point.
>
>Following KISS, the existing SO configuration seems reasonable.The current
>structure, at least, has the advantage of being a little less ambiguous
then
>what is proposed. It is the structure of each SO that is a problem, as well
>as the SO funding model. The only thing I would add is a Users SO (ALSO).
>However, that doesn't have any effect if the general SO funding model
>remains broken.
>
>As far as the DNSO is concerned, the imposed structure is bankrupt, in many
>more ways than one.
>--
>This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|