>>>>> "tm" == Tom McNeely <tom@cnacs.occaid.org> writes:
tm> http://www.occaid.org/proposals/eintap.txt
dnsspam?!
It seems odd for an experimental network to have formal disciplinary
procedures for a behavior that does no harm to others just because
some people think it's unfashionable or juvenile. Such procedures
don't create a climate conducive to experimenting. In my opinion
members should be encouraged to do things with no practical value, and
certainly shouldn't be ``disciplined'' for doing something harmless
just because many people think it looks dumb.
I don't have any so-called ``DNS spam'' in my network right now, but I
do have one guy that set his IPv6 address to ::dead:beef:dead:beef or
something. Next will that be forbidden too because someone thinks
it's unfashionable or childish, or because ``IPv6 addresses were
intended as opaque numerals for routing purposes only and were never
meant to spell things''?
newsgroups like alt.wesley.crusher.die.die.die were tolerated even
though they actually caused some extra disk seeks on the news server.
Sysadmins bitched about it, but no reasonable person filtered out
those groups or tried to ``discipline'' the creators. By comparison,
dnsspam is just stupid-looking and harmless.
The strict prohibition and dispute procedure for so-called DNS spam
strikes me as a pet vendetta more ridiculous than the practice it was
meant to stop. I'm sorry if I'm stepping on someone's toes here, but
I acutally find the attitude pretty disturbing and dangerous. And
this opinion is coming from someone who agrees long domain names that
spell things are stupid and who doesn't do it.
Attachment:
pgpyXrbPNKNCh.pgp
Description: PGP signature