Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.software.thunderbird > #16381 > unrolled thread

ThunderMail is coming soon

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.software.thunderbird

Contents

  ThunderMail is coming soon James <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-20 19:15 +0000
    Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> - 2025-04-20 20:35 +0100
      Re: ThunderMail is coming soon "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-20 21:50 +0200
      Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-04-21 16:13 +0000
        Re: ThunderMail is coming soon D <J@M> - 2025-04-21 20:20 +0200
        Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Jörg Knobloch <jorgk@jorgk.com> - 2025-04-21 22:07 +0200
    Re: ThunderMail is coming soon D <J@M> - 2025-04-20 21:55 +0200
    Re: ThunderMail is coming soon kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> - 2025-04-20 21:42 +0200
      Re: ThunderMail is coming soon VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-20 15:46 -0500
        Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-21 08:52 +0100
          Re: ThunderMail is coming soon VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-21 17:36 -0500
            Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-22 05:58 -0400
              Re: ThunderMail is coming soon VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-22 07:43 -0500
                Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-04-22 23:42 +1000
          Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Wayne <wayne@nospam.com> - 2025-04-22 11:12 -0400
    Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> - 2025-04-20 21:12 +0100
      Re: ThunderMail is coming soon VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-20 15:49 -0500
        Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> - 2025-04-21 08:59 +0100
          Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-21 08:05 -0400
            Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> - 2025-04-21 14:05 +0100
              Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-21 11:41 -0400
              Re: ThunderMail is coming soon VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-21 18:18 -0500
                Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2025-04-22 01:42 +0200
        Re: ThunderMail is coming soon "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-04-21 18:53 +0200
          Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-04-22 20:07 +1000
            Re: ThunderMail is coming soon VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-22 07:49 -0500
              Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-04-22 13:58 +0000
                Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-04-22 15:32 +0000
                Re: ThunderMail is coming soon David <BD@invalid.now> - 2025-05-03 14:50 +0100
                  Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-05-03 14:39 -0400
                    Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-05-03 19:14 +0000
                      Re: ThunderMail is coming soon "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-03 23:53 +0200
                  Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-05-04 13:31 +0000
                    Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-05-04 13:59 +0000
              Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-04-22 15:39 +0100
                Re: ThunderMail is coming soon VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-23 00:27 -0500
                  Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-04-23 11:31 +0100
                    Re: ThunderMail is coming soon VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-23 06:14 -0500
                      Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-04-23 12:36 +0100
                        Re: ThunderMail is coming soon VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-23 06:50 -0500
                      Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-04-23 15:54 +0000
                        Re: ThunderMail is coming soon VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-24 05:00 -0500
                          Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Philip Herlihy <nothing@invalid.com> - 2025-04-24 12:19 +0100
                            Re: ThunderMail is coming soon "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-04-24 14:33 +0200
                              Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Philip Herlihy <nothing@invalid.com> - 2025-04-25 12:54 +0100
                                Re: ThunderMail is coming soon "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-04-25 18:03 +0200
                                  Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Philip Herlihy <nothing@invalid.com> - 2025-04-29 16:48 +0100
                            Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-04-24 14:55 +0100
                              Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-24 15:26 +0100
                                Re: ThunderMail is coming soon VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-24 21:05 -0500
                                  Re: ThunderMail is coming soon VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-24 21:25 -0500
                                    Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-25 06:53 +0100
                                      Re: ThunderMail is coming soon VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-25 01:53 -0500
                                        Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-25 08:11 +0100
                                          Re: ThunderMail is coming soon VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-25 07:06 -0500
                                    Re: ThunderMail is coming soon "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-25 13:47 +0200
                                      Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-25 08:20 -0400
                                        Re: ThunderMail is coming soon VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-25 07:52 -0500
                                          Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-25 12:00 -0400
                                  Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Arthur Conan Doyle <dont@bother.com> - 2025-04-25 07:33 -0500
                              Re: ThunderMail is coming soon "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-24 22:47 +0200
                                Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-04-24 22:09 +0100
                          Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-04-24 15:27 +0000
                          Re: ThunderMail is coming soon "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-04-24 18:37 +0200
                            Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Trump Lost The Tariff War <Trump@US.Gov> - 2025-04-24 17:30 +0000
                              Re: ThunderMail is coming soon "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-04-24 21:48 +0200
              Re: ThunderMail is coming soon "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-04-23 09:45 +0200
              Re: ThunderMail is coming soon "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-04-23 09:45 +0200
        Re: ThunderMail is coming soon "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2025-04-21 19:53 +0000
          Re: ThunderMail is coming soon VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-22 06:31 -0500
    Re: ThunderMail is coming soon VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-20 15:47 -0500
    Re: ThunderMail is coming soon "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-21 03:45 -0700
      Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2025-04-22 21:14 -0500
        Re: ThunderMail is coming soon VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-23 00:54 -0500
    Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Philip Herlihy <nothing@invalid.com> - 2025-04-21 13:00 +0100
    Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Roberto <dash@dominus.net> - 2025-04-21 19:26 +0200
    Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Robert <monstoor@spammedia.com> - 2025-04-23 00:15 +0100
      Re: ThunderMail is coming soon NZ Rules OK <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-23 00:49 +0100
        Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2025-04-22 18:36 -0700
        Re: ThunderMail is coming soon VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-24 05:07 -0500
          Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Robert <monstoor@spammedia.com> - 2025-04-25 00:26 +0100
          Re: ThunderMail is coming soon "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-25 05:44 -0700
    Re: ThunderMail is coming soon VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-16 06:26 -0500
      Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Wayne <wayne@nospam.com> - 2025-05-28 18:26 -0400
        Re: ThunderMail is coming soon VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-28 18:58 -0500
    Re: ThunderMail is coming soon "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 02:18 +0800
      Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Retirednoguilt <HapilyRetired@fakeaddress.com> - 2025-05-21 10:50 -0400

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

#16396

On 4/21/2025 9:05 AM, Dave Royal wrote:

 > MozillaMail would
>   be good - if Mozilla will let them use it. These 'values' that
>   Thundermail is supposed to be promoting are presumably Mozilla's
>   values too. And Mozilla can ensure that Thunderbird keep to
>   them.
> 

   That might sound good to the Slashdot crowd. To the
average person I expect it would sound like it was aimed
at kids. "Your choice -- GodzillaMail, MozillaMail, or
KingKongMail. All come with free bubblegum."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16404

Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> wrote:

> Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> Wrote in message:
> 
>> Thundermail sounds ridiculous, like some kind of Marvel Mailman
>> character.

Sounds like ThunderMale.  Wait, wasn't that Thor's role?

Sometimes folks don't think through the naming.  I worked for Sperry
Rand that shortened to Sperry that merged with Burroughs who then
decided to name themself Unisys (from a contest amongst employees on a
new company name).  Pronounces like someone with a lisp.  We employees
were then called Unisissies or Unisisarians or Unisysites.  We worked on
Unisys' (Uni-sis-sis) property.

> Absolutely agree. And it's too long.
> 
> TMail would be OK, probably unavailable though. MozillaMail would be
> good - if Mozilla will let them use it. These 'values' that
> Thundermail is supposed to be promoting are presumably Mozilla's
> values too. And Mozilla can ensure that Thunderbird keep to them.
> 
> Or maybe MZMail.

mzmail.org and mzmail.com are registered with registrant undisclosed.

Maybe mozmail.org.  Oh oh, that domain is already registered, but the
registrant is hidden.  That domain has nothing to do with Mozilla nor
with anything e-mail.  Some cybersquatter is sitting on the domain that
shows a stupid timer hoping Mozilla eventually buys away the lease.  

However, Mozilla already has a lease on mozmail.com.  

thundermail.org and thundermail.com are already registered, too.

Not as bad as some, like:
- therapistlocator.net:  therapist locator, or the rapist locator.  
- penisland.net: pen island, or penis land.  
- whorepresents.com: who represents, or whore presents.
- bigbustycoons.com: big bus tycoons, or big busty coons.
- speedofart.com: speed of art, or speedo fart.
- kidsexchange.net: kids exchange, or kid sex change.
- masterbaitonline: master bait (& tackle) online, or masturbate online.
- dicksonweb.com: dickson web, or dicks on web.
- rim.jobs: Blackberry job site, or ... ugh.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16405

VanguardLH wrote:
[..snip..]
> 
> thundermail.org and thundermail.com are already registered, too.
> 
> Not as bad as some, like:
> - therapistlocator.net:  therapist locator, or the rapist locator.  
> - penisland.net: pen island, or penis land.  
> - whorepresents.com: who represents, or whore presents.
> - bigbustycoons.com: big bus tycoons, or big busty coons.
> - speedofart.com: speed of art, or speedo fart.
> - kidsexchange.net: kids exchange, or kid sex change.
> - masterbaitonline: master bait (& tackle) online, or masturbate online.
> - dicksonweb.com: dickson web, or dicks on web.
> - rim.jobs: Blackberry job site, or ... ugh.

LOL! ;D YMMD

Reminds me of advertisements in some nasty magazines back in the 80ies.
A special cream for harder erections was called "Penisex". It sounds like
your male organ falls of after using it, "penis ex".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16398

On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 15:49:15 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

>   Additionally, you will be able to bring your own domain on day 1 of 
>   the service."

I don't own a domain, I've registered it and pay for mailhosting to a
firm in a country that respects GDPR. Why would want to move?

-- 
s|b

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16407

On 22/04/2025 2:53 am, s|b wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 15:49:15 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
> 
>>    Additionally, you will be able to bring your own domain on day 1 of
>>    the service."
> 
> I don't own a domain, I've registered it and pay for mailhosting to a
> firm in a country that respects GDPR. Why would want to move?
> 
"GDPR"?? Thank you, Google and Wikipedia

"General Data Protection Regulation"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation
-- 
Daniel70

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16410

Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:

> On 22/04/2025 2:53 am, s|b wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 15:49:15 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
>> 
>>>    Additionally, you will be able to bring your own domain on day 1 of
>>>    the service."
>> 
>> I don't own a domain, I've registered it and pay for mailhosting to a
>> firm in a country that respects GDPR. Why would want to move?
>> 
> "GDPR"?? Thank you, Google and Wikipedia
> 
> "General Data Protection Regulation"
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation

GDPR ruined DNS lookups by requiring redaction of registrants.  Trying
to get contact info on a domain registrant to alert them to a problem
with their web site becomes much more difficult.  Yeah, they want to
provide a publicly accessible web site, but the registrant wants to
hide.  Thanks GDPR ... not!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16412

VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
> Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 22/04/2025 2:53 am, s|b wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 15:49:15 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Additionally, you will be able to bring your own domain on day 1 of
>>>> the service."
>>> 
>>> I don't own a domain, I've registered it and pay for mailhosting to a
>>> firm in a country that respects GDPR. Why would want to move?
>>> 
>> "GDPR"?? Thank you, Google and Wikipedia
>> 
>> "General Data Protection Regulation"
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation
> 
> GDPR ruined DNS lookups by requiring redaction of registrants.  Trying
> to get contact info on a domain registrant to alert them to a problem
> with their web site becomes much more difficult.  Yeah, they want to
> provide a publicly accessible web site, but the registrant wants to
> hide.  Thanks GDPR ... not!

A decent website will a contact option. You should not have to be forced to
give out personal information via a WHOIS lookup. 

So yes, thanks GDPR. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16415

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
[...]

> > GDPR ruined DNS lookups by requiring redaction of registrants.  Trying
> > to get contact info on a domain registrant to alert them to a problem
> > with their web site becomes much more difficult.  Yeah, they want to
> > provide a publicly accessible web site, but the registrant wants to
> > hide.  Thanks GDPR ... not!
> 
> A decent website will a contact option. You should not have to be forced to
> give out personal information via a WHOIS lookup. 
> 
> So yes, thanks GDPR. 

  Exactly. And even if the website doesn't have a contact option,
webmaster@<website> should work. If it doesn't, blame the website, not
the GDPR.

  BTW, similarly for mailservers, news servers, etc.. Yes, many are
broken, news at eleven.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16503

On 22/04/2025 14:58, Chris wrote:
> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>> Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 22/04/2025 2:53 am, s|b wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 15:49:15 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Additionally, you will be able to bring your own domain on day 1 of
>>>>> the service."
>>>>
>>>> I don't own a domain, I've registered it and pay for mailhosting to a
>>>> firm in a country that respects GDPR. Why would want to move?
>>>>
>>> "GDPR"?? Thank you, Google and Wikipedia
>>>
>>> "General Data Protection Regulation"
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation
>>
>> GDPR ruined DNS lookups by requiring redaction of registrants.  Trying
>> to get contact info on a domain registrant to alert them to a problem
>> with their web site becomes much more difficult.  Yeah, they want to
>> provide a publicly accessible web site, but the registrant wants to
>> hide.  Thanks GDPR ... not!
> 
> A decent website will a contact option. You should not have to be forced to
> give out personal information via a WHOIS lookup.
> 
> So yes, thanks GDPR.

DO NOT FOLLOW THIS ADVICE.

Never click links nor run software from someone you don't know 
supposedly trying to help.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16504

On Sat, 5/3/2025 9:50 AM, David wrote:
> On 22/04/2025 14:58, Chris wrote:
>> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>>> Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 22/04/2025 2:53 am, s|b wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 15:49:15 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Additionally, you will be able to bring your own domain on day 1 of
>>>>>> the service."
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't own a domain, I've registered it and pay for mailhosting to a
>>>>> firm in a country that respects GDPR. Why would want to move?
>>>>>
>>>> "GDPR"?? Thank you, Google and Wikipedia
>>>>
>>>> "General Data Protection Regulation"
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation
>>>
>>> GDPR ruined DNS lookups by requiring redaction of registrants.  Trying
>>> to get contact info on a domain registrant to alert them to a problem
>>> with their web site becomes much more difficult.  Yeah, they want to
>>> provide a publicly accessible web site, but the registrant wants to
>>> hide.  Thanks GDPR ... not!
>>
>> A decent website will a contact option. You should not have to be forced to
>> give out personal information via a WHOIS lookup.
>>
>> So yes, thanks GDPR.
> 
> DO NOT FOLLOW THIS ADVICE.
> 
> Never click links nor run software from someone you don't know supposedly trying to help.
> 

Redaction of contact information is a good thing.
(It's a tradeoff caused by the world we live in.)

a guy on USENET, had his computer room wiped out by ransomware.
How was he selected ? He registered a web domain with GoDaddy,
showing his personal information. he wasn't cloaked.

One day, an email arrived, with a "bill" attached from GoDaddy.
except, the email wasn't actually from GoDaddy. It was from
a Black Hat. The Black Hat scanned GoDaddy and extracted all
the email addresses. The attachment on the email is actually
an executable ransomware. All you need to do is double
click it, thinking it is a PDF. The code included a worm,
so the code could attack all the computers.

It took MONTHS for him to recover the computer room.
No backups.

However, the mental damage could not be undone.
He no longer visits USENET.

I have successfully reached websites using admin@ or webmaster@
and on one occasion, they even sent an ACK. Look for
suggested canonical forms of email addresses, for
contacting site admin. The purpose of those channels,
is not for "chats", it's to warn about site damage or
server issues that perhaps the admin cannot observe.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16505

On Sat, 3 May 2025 14:39:20 -0400, Paul wrote:

> On Sat, 5/3/2025 9:50 AM, David wrote:
>> On 22/04/2025 14:58, Chris wrote:
>>> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>>>> Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 22/04/2025 2:53 am, s|b wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 15:49:15 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Additionally, you will be able to bring your own domain on day 1
>>>>>>> of the service."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't own a domain, I've registered it and pay for mailhosting to
>>>>>> a firm in a country that respects GDPR. Why would want to move?
>>>>>>
>>>>> "GDPR"?? Thank you, Google and Wikipedia
>>>>>
>>>>> "General Data Protection Regulation"
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation
>>>>
>>>> GDPR ruined DNS lookups by requiring redaction of registrants. 
>>>> Trying to get contact info on a domain registrant to alert them to a
>>>> problem with their web site becomes much more difficult.  Yeah, they
>>>> want to provide a publicly accessible web site, but the registrant
>>>> wants to hide.  Thanks GDPR ... not!
>>>
>>> A decent website will a contact option. You should not have to be
>>> forced to give out personal information via a WHOIS lookup.
>>>
>>> So yes, thanks GDPR.
>> 
>> DO NOT FOLLOW THIS ADVICE.
>> 
>> Never click links nor run software from someone you don't know
>> supposedly trying to help.
>> 
>> 
> Redaction of contact information is a good thing.
> (It's a tradeoff caused by the world we live in.)
> 
> a guy on USENET, had his computer room wiped out by ransomware.
> How was he selected ? He registered a web domain with GoDaddy, showing
> his personal information. he wasn't cloaked.
> 
> One day, an email arrived, with a "bill" attached from GoDaddy.
> except, the email wasn't actually from GoDaddy. It was from a Black Hat.
> The Black Hat scanned GoDaddy and extracted all the email addresses. The
> attachment on the email is actually an executable ransomware. All you
> need to do is double click it, thinking it is a PDF. 

Could that attachment have had a name like:

bill.pdf.exe

And Windows hid the extension, making it look like:

bill.pdf

Windows would still know that the extension was exe even though it looked 
like a pdf. That makes it look like M$ made a bad decision.

> The code included a
> worm,
> so the code could attack all the computers.

[snip]

-- 
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The foolish renounce this world and pursue an imaginary world to come."
-- Giordano Bruno (1548-1600), Italian philosopher

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16506

On 2025-05-03 21:14, Mark Lloyd wrote:
> On Sat, 3 May 2025 14:39:20 -0400, Paul wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 5/3/2025 9:50 AM, David wrote:
>>> On 22/04/2025 14:58, Chris wrote:
>>>> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>>>>> Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 22/04/2025 2:53 am, s|b wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 15:49:15 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Additionally, you will be able to bring your own domain on day 1
>>>>>>>> of the service."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't own a domain, I've registered it and pay for mailhosting to
>>>>>>> a firm in a country that respects GDPR. Why would want to move?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> "GDPR"?? Thank you, Google and Wikipedia
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "General Data Protection Regulation"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation
>>>>>
>>>>> GDPR ruined DNS lookups by requiring redaction of registrants.
>>>>> Trying to get contact info on a domain registrant to alert them to a
>>>>> problem with their web site becomes much more difficult.  Yeah, they
>>>>> want to provide a publicly accessible web site, but the registrant
>>>>> wants to hide.  Thanks GDPR ... not!
>>>>
>>>> A decent website will a contact option. You should not have to be
>>>> forced to give out personal information via a WHOIS lookup.
>>>>
>>>> So yes, thanks GDPR.
>>>
>>> DO NOT FOLLOW THIS ADVICE.
>>>
>>> Never click links nor run software from someone you don't know
>>> supposedly trying to help.
>>>
>>>
>> Redaction of contact information is a good thing.
>> (It's a tradeoff caused by the world we live in.)
>>
>> a guy on USENET, had his computer room wiped out by ransomware.
>> How was he selected ? He registered a web domain with GoDaddy, showing
>> his personal information. he wasn't cloaked.
>>
>> One day, an email arrived, with a "bill" attached from GoDaddy.
>> except, the email wasn't actually from GoDaddy. It was from a Black Hat.
>> The Black Hat scanned GoDaddy and extracted all the email addresses. The
>> attachment on the email is actually an executable ransomware. All you
>> need to do is double click it, thinking it is a PDF.
> 
> Could that attachment have had a name like:
> 
> bill.pdf.exe
> 
> And Windows hid the extension, making it look like:
> 
> bill.pdf
> 
> Windows would still know that the extension was exe even though it looked
> like a pdf. That makes it look like M$ made a bad decision.

That's one of the tricks. Another is to name it

bill.pdf                                              .exe

with a lot of spaces hopping to make the extension flow out of the window.


By the way, this trick doesn't work on Linux and TB. Double click 
doesn't run an attachment, because it needs to be flagged as executable.

Also, it is quite simple to configure a mail server to block any email 
that contain executable attachments.


Another trick for some time was to email nice screensavers.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16507

David <BD@invalid.now> wrote:
> On 22/04/2025 14:58, Chris wrote:
>> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>>> Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 22/04/2025 2:53 am, s|b wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 15:49:15 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Additionally, you will be able to bring your own domain on day 1 of
>>>>>> the service."
>>>>> 
>>>>> I don't own a domain, I've registered it and pay for mailhosting to a
>>>>> firm in a country that respects GDPR. Why would want to move?
>>>>> 
>>>> "GDPR"?? Thank you, Google and Wikipedia
>>>> 
>>>> "General Data Protection Regulation"
>>>> 
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation
>>> 
>>> GDPR ruined DNS lookups by requiring redaction of registrants.  Trying
>>> to get contact info on a domain registrant to alert them to a problem
>>> with their web site becomes much more difficult.  Yeah, they want to
>>> provide a publicly accessible web site, but the registrant wants to
>>> hide.  Thanks GDPR ... not!
>> 
>> A decent website will a contact option. You should not have to be forced to
>> give out personal information via a WHOIS lookup.
>> 
>> So yes, thanks GDPR.
> 
> DO NOT FOLLOW THIS ADVICE.
> 
> Never click links nor run software from someone you don't know 
> supposedly trying to help.

I'm glad you at least learned something today...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16508

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> David <BD@invalid.now> wrote:
> > On 22/04/2025 14:58, Chris wrote:
[...]
> >> A decent website will a contact option. You should not have to be forced to
> >> give out personal information via a WHOIS lookup.
> >> 
> >> So yes, thanks GDPR.
> > 
> > DO NOT FOLLOW THIS ADVICE.
> > 
> > Never click links nor run software from someone you don't know 
> > supposedly trying to help.
> 
> I'm glad you at least learned something today...

  Well, not changing nyms - to evade killfiles - all the time ('EMAK'),
isn't something 'Boater Dave' learned, not today and probably not ever.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16413

On 2025-04-22 13:49, VanguardLH wrote:
> 
> GDPR ruined DNS lookups by requiring redaction of registrants.  Trying
> to get contact info on a domain registrant to alert them to a problem
> with their web site becomes much more difficult.  Yeah, they want to
> provide a publicly accessible web site, but the registrant wants to
> hide.  Thanks GDPR ... not!

Can't say that I've noticed any such problem  -  I just use Whois  -  so 
I suspect that this is just another example of someone from the other 
side of the pond having an uninformed opinion against the EU and its 
legislation.  Many countries in the EU, including Britain who was still 
a member at the time, had or were considering their own similar national 
legislation, but it was always obviously one of those matters where a 
continent wide harmonised approach made more sense.

https://whois.domaintools.com/

-- 

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: 
www.macfh.co.uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16420

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote:
> 
>> GDPR ruined DNS lookups by requiring redaction of registrants.  Trying
>> to get contact info on a domain registrant to alert them to a problem
>> with their web site becomes much more difficult.  Yeah, they want to
>> provide a publicly accessible web site, but the registrant wants to
>> hide.  Thanks GDPR ... not!
> 
> Can't say that I've noticed any such problem  -  I just use Whois  - 
> so I suspect that this is just another example of someone from the
> other side of the pond having an uninformed opinion against the EU
> and its legislation.  

I meant domain lookups, not DNS lookups.  When did you last do a WhoIs
lookup on a domain?  You get a privatized domain registration where the
registrar pretends they are the registrant (IANA requires someone be
identified as the registrant), or a registrant that is redacted, because
the registrar follows GDPR rules.

As for WhoIs, yes, that is what I'm talking about: look at a domain's
registration which is required by IANA to provide contact information on
/some/ registrant.

To get around IANA's requirement, some registrars provided a private
registration service at an extra fee.  The registrant in the domain
registration was the registrar instead of the actual registrant.  Then
came the GDPR where registrants could request their registrant data to
get redacted, or the registrar did it en masse.  So, when you lookup the
domain registration, you got shit for registrant info.

The primary impetus for hiding the registrant info was because there
were spammers that would lookup up domain registrations to see which
ones were about to expire, and offer their registration service.
Registrants didn't want to get the spam, so they wanted to hide their
identification in the domain registration records.  With privatized
registration, the registrar was identified as the registrant.  The
registrar handled the "renew your domain with us" spam.  The whole point
of privatized registration was to hide the real registrant.  

The solution was extremely simple: use an e-mail address specifying and
only for domain registration with your registrar.  Create an e-mail
account for just domain registration notifications, and add a filter
that accepted e-mails only from your registrar, so all other messages
get immediately discard on delivery.  You could identify yourself as the
registrant, and even give postal addresses (since spammers don't pay for
a stamp to send spam).

Then later came the GDPR where registrants could hide without having to
pay extra for privatized registration.  The registrant info got redacted
to point at a registrar, or one of their services, like e-mail addresses
that pointed back to the registrar.

https://www.whois.com/whois/domaintools.com

is registered with TuCows, and says the registrant is:

https://tieredaccess.com/contact/eceac3b1-4ae2-4ab0-a2d8-f7647c12c66b

but:

https://www.whois.com/whois/tieredaccess.com

shows that domain is TuCows, the registrar.  The domaintools.com
registration hides the actual registrant, and the purported registrant
is the registrar whose domain lookup is not redacted for registrant
info.

Sorry to those who suggest a web site should provide contact
information.  Yeah, like that really works ... NOT!  Rare few sites
provide contact information.  Instead they may provide a web form to
contact them.  Or worse is they push some AI chat bot at you that is of
no help at all, and worthless to report problems to the website.

Oh yes, send an e-mail to webmaster@<domain> or postmaster@<domain>.
Most often those are bit buckets to automatically discard those
messages.  Those that suggest this method haven't tried it.  The success
rate is about the same as firing a .22 rifle while blindfolded at a
pinata from a quarter mile away.

It's not just small fry that get to hide it's their web site.  Huge
corporations do it, too.  So, why continue with bogus domain
registration records that do not identify the registrant?  None of the
other remaining information is of any value.  All you're left with
nowadays is to see when a domain got registered, when last updated, and
when it expires.  The whole point of WhoIS was neutered by privatized
domain registrations, and then by the GDPR.  So, just get rid of all
domain lookups, and leave everyone in the dark who is operating a web
site since that is effectively what WhoIs has become: nearly worthless.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16424

On 2025-04-23 06:27, VanguardLH wrote:
>
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>
>>> GDPR ruined DNS lookups by requiring redaction of registrants.  Trying
>>> to get contact info on a domain registrant to alert them to a problem
>>> with their web site becomes much more difficult.  Yeah, they want to
>>> provide a publicly accessible web site, but the registrant wants to
>>> hide.  Thanks GDPR ... not!
>>
>> Can't say that I've noticed any such problem  -  I just use Whois  -
>> so I suspect that this is just another example of someone from the
>> other side of the pond having an uninformed opinion against the EU
>> and its legislation.
> 
> I meant domain lookups, not DNS lookups.  When did you last do a WhoIs
> lookup on a domain?

Many times since GDPR was adopted by the EU.  As for the gist of your 
argument, which I've snipped as it was unnecessarily long-winded, as far 
as I could tell it from skimming through it ...

If you need to complain about a domain's behaviour, spamming or 
whatever, if you don't get any joy from the contacts given out by the 
website itself or the generally accepted default contacts, usually it is 
sufficient to complain next to the Registrant; if the problem behaviour 
persists, they can, and in my experience will, threaten to refuse to 
handle the domain.  For example, there was a domain that held both 
incorrect information and personally identifying information about my 
family's descent from a younger son of a Chief of Clan Macfarlane, so I 
wrote to the domain's contact address given on the site, both correcting 
the wrong information and demanding the removal of personally 
identifying information of living people and their parents.  Initially, 
the owner refused the latter, worse still, he bolshed about it, claiming 
that I was curtailing his freedoms, blah, blah.  So I complained to the 
Registrant about his behaviour, and the personally identifying 
information was duly removed.

As for wishing to complain about the actual functionality of a website, 
any reputable business will be at least somewhat interested if their 
website is causing their customers or users difficulties, after all it's 
the modern equivalent of their retail premises or shop window.  If their 
site is causing sufficient problems to sufficient numbers of people, 
they'd be foolish to ignore the problem, as it will likely adversely 
affect their business bottom line.  For example, I have written before 
here or hereabouts about why I ditched Three in the UK as my mobile 
supplier, partly because their site and management of personal data 
behind it were so appallingly programmed.

More generally, often you don't need to know the actual site ownership 
details to work out what you need to know about a it.  For example, 
during the covid pandemic, a great many fake and pseudo science sites 
sprung up concerning it, all you needed to know in that situation was 
that the sites having questionable information were created at or around 
the outbreak, so weren't likely to be reliable purveyors of reliable 
medical information from a reliable source.  Similarly with other forms 
of scientific denialism.

-- 

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: 
www.macfh.co.uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16425

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

> If you need to complain about a domain's behaviour, spamming or
> whatever, if you don't get any joy from the contacts given out by the
> website itself or the generally accepted default contacts, usually it
> is sufficient to complain next to the Registrant; ...

Presumably you meant the registrar.  The problem is the domain lookup
nowadays often doesn't reveal contact info on the registrant, there is
no contact info at the web site (assuming it is up and responsive, and
you're not trying to report it is down), and the postmaster and
webmaster e-mail addresses are just bit buckets, or not defined so I get
back an NDR (Non-Delivery Report).  

I'm not trying to report an abusive web site.  I'm trying to contact its
registrant to report a problem with the web site, like it is not
responsive, it may be hacked (e.g., a popup appears mentioning infection
which is ransomware), or otherwise trying to help the registrant with
their web site.  Too many owners don't monitor their sites nor use tools
to notify them when it is down.  They don't know there is a problem
until someone tells them.  That is when contacting them phone or e-mail
can notify them.

Think of walking behind someone carrying a grocery bag, and a can falls
out of a hole in the bag.  You get their attention they are losing their
groceries.  You are helping them, not calling 911 to have them arrested
for littering.

> As for wishing to complain about the actual functionality of a website, 
> any reputable business will be at least somewhat interested if their 
> website is causing their customers or users difficulties, after all it's 
> the modern equivalent of their retail premises or shop window.  If their 
> site is causing sufficient problems to sufficient numbers of people, 
> they'd be foolish to ignore the problem, as it will likely adversely 
> affect their business bottom line.  

How would they know?  Yes, there are monitoring services they could
enlist, but not everyone uses them.  Some web sites are e-tailers, but
many are hobbyists.  It's not they are ignoring a problem.  It's they
don't there is a problem.

> More generally, often you don't need to know the actual site ownership 
> details to work out what you need to know about a it.  

Some web sites won't provide phone numbers, postal addresses, or e-mail
addresses, but supply a web form to contact them.  However, if the web
site is down, obviously you cannot use their web form.  You also cannot
get any contact info published at the web site, because it is down.  So,
what are you left with?  Postmaster and webmaster e-mail address that
are often worthless, or to lookup the domain registrant to see if you
can contact them that way.

Someone recently noted they could not connect to a web site, because
there was some alert in their web browser the site cert was invalid.  I
did the domain lookup, and saw the site cert expired the same day the
user noted they could no longer connect to the site.  Someone somehow
notified the site admin their cert had expired, and they bought another
lease to renew their cert the next day.  The user couldn't load the web
page to get contact info, if even published, at the web site.  Their
domain lookup had bogus registrant info.  I would expect the registrar
would have informed them about a soon-expiring site cert, but maybe the
site owner didn't get it, or didn't see it, or the site owner changed
their e-mail address, so the registrar's notifications were never
received.  You could wait until doomsday hoping the site admin got a new
site cert figuring somehow they'd find out about it.  Or you could be
the someone that somehow told them their site cert had expired.

Digging around a web site looking for contact info is fruitless if the
site is down.  You could try HTTP if HTTPS failed, but not all HTTPS
sites have HTTP pages.  You could send off e-mails to postmaster or
webmaster, but that assumes the site owner reads those instead of
discarding them, or that postmaster@<domain> is where the site's owner
gets e-mails.  

Never had someone tell you your car lights were still on as you were
walking away?  Or you dropped your keys?

With the GDPR, maybe one day you won't even be able to lookup a domain's
registration period, because, gee, that can be construed as private
between registrant and their registrar.  I don't visit the Dark Web, and
the White Web shouldn't behave like the Dark Web.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16426

On 2025-04-23 12:14, VanguardLH wrote:
>
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>> If you need to complain about a domain's behaviour, spamming or
>> whatever, if you don't get any joy from the contacts given out by the
>> website itself or the generally accepted default contacts, usually it
>> is sufficient to complain next to the Registrant; ...
> 
> Presumably you meant the registrar.

Yes, my mistake.

> I'm not trying to report an abusive web site.  I'm trying to contact its
> registrant to report a problem with the web site, like it is not
> responsive, it may be hacked (e.g., a popup appears mentioning infection
> which is ransomware), or otherwise trying to help the registrant with
> their web site.  Too many owners don't monitor their sites nor use tools
> to notify them when it is down.  They don't know there is a problem
> until someone tells them.  That is when contacting them phone or e-mail
> can notify them.

A worthwhile website will have contact information you can use for this, 
if they don't, their problem.

>> As for wishing to complain about the actual functionality of a website,
>> any reputable business will be at least somewhat interested if their
>> website is causing their customers or users difficulties, after all it's
>> the modern equivalent of their retail premises or shop window.  If their
>> site is causing sufficient problems to sufficient numbers of people,
>> they'd be foolish to ignore the problem, as it will likely adversely
>> affect their business bottom line.
> 
> How would they know?

Again, a worthwhile website will have contact information you can use 
for this, if they don't, again their problem.

>> More generally, often you don't need to know the actual site ownership
>> details to work out what you need to know about a it.
> 
> Some web sites won't provide phone numbers, postal addresses, or e-mail
> addresses, but supply a web form to contact them.  However, if the web
> site is down, obviously you cannot use their web form.  You also cannot
> get any contact info published at the web site, because it is down.  So,
> what are you left with?  Postmaster and webmaster e-mail address that
> are often worthless, or to lookup the domain registrant to see if you
> can contact them that way.

Most people browsing wouldn't bother to notify a site owner if their 
site was so completely down that no contact details could even be 
loaded, but if someone is sufficiently motivated to do so, they could 
send the site a message via the registrar, asking them to pass it on.

-- 

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: 
www.macfh.co.uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16427

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

> A worthwhile website will have contact information you can use for this, 
> if they don't, their problem.

A worthwhile site provides contact information.  
The web site is down, unresponsive, or unreachable.
Just how are you going to get that contact information?

> Most people browsing wouldn't bother to notify a site owner if their 
> site was so completely down that no contact details could even be 
> loaded, but if someone is sufficiently motivated to do so, they could 
> send the site a message via the registrar, asking them to pass it on.

I could try that (ask the registrar to contact the registrant).  Too
often a service ignores requests not from their customers.  Registrars
dole out domain leases.  Web admin is not their business, so I'd be
asking a disinterested party.  Never know, though.  It could work.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.software.thunderbird

csiph-web