Sponsor's Message

What do you do if you're caught out and not only get berated by the NZ Commerce Commission but also become the target of court action by the auDA (Australian Domain Administration)?

Would you keep your head down and beg forgiveness in the hope that your outrageous practices might be forgiven?

Well if you're Aussie ratbag Chesley Rafferty, the man behind the recent mass mailing of pseudo-invoices to NZ domain name holders, you ignore all the fuss and continue "business as usual."

Yes, believe it or not, this guy (again) sent out another mass mailing late last week offering to register domain names for more than twice the regular price and doing so with an offer that, according to reports, might easily be mistaken for an invoice.

Well this guy has to score bonus points -- either for his nerve or his total lack of commonsense.

Who knows, maybe he's trying to rake up enough cash to pay for his legal defence?

Whatever the reason, one thing's for sure -- it's probably a good idea to remind all your friends and associates of this guy's activities because there's a pretty good chance that he'll try to dupe NZ domain name holders again in the very near future.

But where are the consumer protection authorities when you need them?

How can an operator like this be allowed to freely continue in behaviour that is already the target of legal action? Don't the Australian authorities have the power (or the will) to injunct this guy from continuing his allegedly deceptive sales tactics?

Who Owns Your Ports?
It seems that Xtra has decided to block port 135 from passing traffic through its network.

If you've been using Windows' filesharing capabilities over the Net then suddenly it won't work. (Whether it's a good idea to use Windows' file sharing in this manner is a whole different matter).

This action was taken to allegedly reduce the effect that the MSBlaster worm was having on network traffic levels -- and to that end it's probably not a stupid idea.

However, it again raises the whole issue as to whether ISPs (as a common carrier) have the right to mess with your data.

Some users of Paradise have bitched to me that they're really annoyed that the ISP's spam filters can't (yet) be selectively disabled if required. Does *any* ISP have the right to decide that an incoming email addressed to you should be dumped or diverted?

One man's meat is another man's spam perhaps? (although there's some debate as to the type and percentage of meat that Spam itself contains -- eeeew!).

What do you think -- should ISPs who mess around with your email and the transparency of your internet connection be allowed to call themselves "carriers" and enjoy the protections that such status provides?

If any Aardvark readers want to share an opinion on today's column or add something, you're invited to chip in and have your say in The Aardvark Forums or, if you prefer, you can contact me directly.

Contacting Aardvark
I'm always happy to hear from readers, whether they're delivering brickbats, bouquets or news tip-offs. If you'd like to contact me directly, please this form. If you're happy for me to republish your comments then please be sure and select For Publication.

Other media organisations seeking more information or republication rights are also invited to contact me.

Just add a couple of lines of JavaScript to your pages and you can get a free summary of Aardvark's daily commentary -- automatically updated each and every week-day.

Aardvark also makes a summary of this daily column available via XML using the RSS format. More details can be found here.

Contact me if you decide to use either of these feeds and have any problems.

Linking Policy
Want to link to this site? Check out Aardvark's Linking Policy.

Did you tell someone else about Aardvark today? If not then do it now!