Slashdot Mirror
NSI Changes the WHOIS Rules
[rs.internic.net]
The Data in Network Solutions' WHOIS database is provided by Network
Solutions for information purposes, and to assist persons in obtaining
information about or related to a domain name registration record.
Network Solutions does not guarantee its accuracy. By submitting a
WHOIS query, you agree that you will use this Data only for lawful
purposes and that, under no circumstances will you use this Data to:
(1) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass
unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via e-mail
(spam); or (2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes
that apply to Network Solutions (or its systems). Network Solutions
reserves the right to modify these terms at any time. By submitting
this query, you agree to abide by this policy.
Well, all they are saying is that you can't misuse the information they gave you. Its like as if I handed you a document that said written across the page "Top Secret, for your eyes only" Sure you probably already looked at some of the document before you noticed the top secret and its really too late at that point to say no I don't want to look at this document. You just simply keep your mouth shut and try and follow the legal order which the document gave you.
Too bad they don't have to agree to their own terms.
Actually, the original idea of putting the admin information in whois was so that if I made a technical error in, say, my routing that bogged down the network, people who saw the problem would know who to contact. That's perfectly sound. Of course that was in the good old days when everyone trusted everyone else. :-(
I run my own domain and mail server, amazing.com. There has always been only one valid email address for amazing.com, the rather obvious david@amazing.com . Recently, I've seen spams to other users at this domain, like brian@amazing.com . So I can only assume spammers are just inventing addresses in the hopes that they will work.
I find it interesting that people are selling these addresses to spammers - I would think the poor fools who buy these lists have a valid cause of action for fraud.
D
----
The text of the agreement has changed (again). So, yes, they've posted before (twice, I think) that NSI has changed their agreement, but that's because this is the third time they've changed the agreement.
So you can't spam them if you don't like agreeing to something you didn't agree to?
...and you can't look up their e-mail address in whois if you plan to spam them anyhow?
That's no fun...
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
By that, I mean legally bind someone to an agreement without first presenting the agreement for acceptance, modification, or whatever. Thats like taking a section of sidewalk, and at the end having a big sign that says "By walking down this sidewalk you agree to pay the guy next to the sign the sum of 10 american dollars". It just so happens that something important or useful is on the other end of said sidewalk.
Don't get me wrong, here, I am all for anything that gives power to attack spammers. I am just curious about the legality, the possible annoying precedent set here (think of the software licensing, the install is a program that presents a single "press enter" button then a screen that says "By pressing enter, you agreed to...").
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
By reading the above article, you agree to send $50 to CmdrTaco. Send the money to:
Rob Malda
116 East 18th St
Holland, MI 49423
Thank you, thank you very much.
There are several requirements for a valid contract. One of these is consideration. What do I get in exchange for giving up all my money? If I get nothing, there's no consideration.
In your black box example and similar examples given here about writing on the sidewalk there is no consideration.
Another is called Meeting of the Minds -- everyone has to have all of the terms of the contract available to agree to them. This dosn't mean the terms have to be negotiable. (Contracts where you are offered terms take it or leave it i.e. insurance contracts are called contracts of adhesion and are very much enforcable. Though ambiguous clauses are interpreted against the drafter of the contract.)
This agreement, while perhaps not enforcable on the first lookup, is likely enforceable on subsequent lookups. The agreement itself is really not onerous. Here is some information (that may be valuable to you -- consideration), in exchange for that information you agree to two things:
(a) don't spam with it.
(b) don't put too big a burden on our servers.
That's quite an improvement over the old agreement.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Just incase you want to strip out the legalise internic has stuck in their whois, put this into your .bashrc or .bash_profile:
alias whois=`whois $* | tail -7`
Enjoy.
--
Well, this is a small improvement, at least. They're no longer claiming to own my name, address, phone number, and other personal information.
Now if only NSI would abide by their own terms and stop using the database to send me spam...