Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Perils of an .xyz Domain

spotvirtual.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 282 posts

Re: The Perils of an .xyz Domain

#271

Post by wikidani »

maxwell wrote: post #34
krono wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blocking of messages/emails and blanket email server/domain/extension blacklisting is the same as a postal service not delivering mail to or from a particular entity/street/town. Doing so silently and without a valid and case-specific reason should not be legally allowed. Edit: Added "street/town" to analogy, and "case-specific" before reason

The FCC classified SMS/MMS as unregulated, filterable "information services" rather than regulated "telecommunications services". https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/sms-mms-deemed-infor...

I really would like to see what was the legal reason behind that, I know the US has issues with gov't agencies using their opinions as law but I thought mail was constitutionally protected?

Re: The Perils of an .xyz Domain

#272

Post by Zuider »

silisili wrote: post #163
skrtskrt wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seconded, having worked in this space I can assure everyone that there are multiple orders of magnitude more (attempted) spam SMS than legitimate SMS.

I believe that, completely. But keyword silently blocking is an objectively bad approach. Tell the sender it failed if you're so keen to do so. Or tag it with a big POTENTIAL SPAM at the beginning of the message and send it. Or literally any of the dozens of smarter ways of content filtering than (if .xyz in y).

> Tell the sender it failed...

But if the sender is a bad actor, they can just keep testing until they succeed, which will make fraud worse.

Re: The Perils of an .xyz Domain

#273

Post by maxwell »

wikidani wrote: post #271
maxwell wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FCC classified SMS/MMS as unregulated, filterable "information services" rather than regulated "telecommunications services". https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/sms-mms-deemed-infor...

I really would like to see what was the legal reason behind that, I know the US has issues with gov't agencies using their opinions as law but I thought mail was constitutionally protected?

The FCC just makes decisions, we're talking regulations here, not laws. They justified it with "preventing spam" and enabling competition with unregulated OTT apps.

I'm glad that Twilio fought for Title II governance: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60001324418.pdf

Where was everyone else?

As far as the sanctity of the U.S. Mail, it only applies to sealed envelopes/packages, and Congress can ban items from the mail (e.g. lottery pamphlets, spurious tokens, gasoline, etc.)

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/96/727/

Re: The Perils of an .xyz Domain

#274

Post by teddyh »

unethical_ban wrote: post #251
teddyh wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Censorship is not limited to “oppression due to opinion”, it can be done for any reason.

Well there's where we disagree - on the common usage and context of the word.

If someone omits or deletes people’s texts for racist reasons, that is still censorship, even though it is not done for the opinions of the people who are being censored.

Re: The Perils of an .xyz Domain

#275

Post by wikidani »

maxwell wrote: post #273
wikidani wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really would like to see what was the legal reason behind that, I know the US has issues with gov't agencies using their opinions as law but I thought mail was constitutionally protected?

The FCC just makes decisions, we're talking regulations here, not laws. They justified it with "preventing spam" and enabling competition with unregulated OTT apps. I'm glad that Twilio fought for Title II governance: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60001324418.pdf Where was everyone else? As far as the sanctity of the U.S. Mail, it only applies to sealed envelopes/packages, and Congress can ban items from the mail (e.g…

Doesn't congress make a law saying breaking x regulation carries y penalty and at the same time gives the agency power to decide what constitutes breaking x? I know for a fact that BATFE does this rather frequently. Also, thanks for the clarification about the secrecy of US mail. I apreciate it

Re: The Perils of an .xyz Domain

#277

Post by account42 »

skrtskrt wrote: post #122
duskwuff wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd be getting an unbelievable amount of SMS spam if carriers weren't allowed to block messages. There's a lot of bad actors out there.

Seconded, having worked in this space I can assure everyone that there are multiple orders of magnitude more (attempted) spam SMS than legitimate SMS.

> multiple orders of magnitude more (attempted) spam SMS

Are those actually spam messages or messages "detected" as spam.

Re: The Perils of an .xyz Domain

#278

Post by account42 »

Zuider wrote: post #272
silisili wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that, completely. But keyword silently blocking is an objectively bad approach. Tell the sender it failed if you're so keen to do so. Or tag it with a big POTENTIAL SPAM at the beginning of the message and send it. Or literally any of the dozens of smarter ways of content filtering than (if .xyz in y).

> Tell the sender it failed... But if the sender is a bad actor, they can just keep testing until they succeed, which will make fraud worse.

Apparently sometimes the sender is not a bad actor.

Re: The Perils of an .xyz Domain

#279

Post by account42 »

SllX wrote: post #167
krono wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blocking of messages/emails and blanket email server/domain/extension blacklisting is the same as a postal service not delivering mail to or from a particular entity/street/town. Doing so silently and without a valid and case-specific reason should not be legally allowed. Edit: Added "street/town" to analogy, and "case-specific" before reason

In effect, sure, but in implementation these aren’t comparable. Postal services usually come with monopolies and mandates that ISPs, telecoms and email servers usually don’t. USPS has a monopoly on first-class mail in the US and a Congressional mandate to deliver to every address.

> telecoms and email servers usually don’t

Telecoms get a (local) monopoly on parts of the radio spectrum.

Re: The Perils of an .xyz Domain

#280

Post by account42 »

pasc1878 wrote: post #156
thaumasiotes wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> its the edge cases that make your spam folder. Well, from their perspective. Not from any reasonable perspective; I have a few obviously-spam emails in my gmail spam folder right now, but I've had plenty of problems with gmail refusing to deliver completely legitimate email to me.

If there was no filtering how many spammessages would you receive? I suspect any more than you see

I run my own mail server and never silently drop any messages. I also have a catcha-all inbox and my primary email address is available publicly in many places (my website, git repos, bug trackers, ...). The amount of spam is really not that bad.
Post reply on HN