<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
	xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
	<channel>
		<title>Suresh Ramasubramanian &#45; CircleID</title>
		<link>http://www.circleid.com/</link>
		<description>Postings from Suresh Ramasubramanian on CircleID</description>
		<dc:language>en</dc:language>
		<dc:rights>Copyright 2008, unless where otherwise noted.</dc:rights>
		<dc:date>2008-06-06T04:22:00-08:00</dc:date>
		

		
		<item>
			<title> .hk the "Most Unsafe" Domains? (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/hk_the_most_unsafe_domains</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/hk_the_most_unsafe_domains</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hong Kong domains are the most dangerous in the world; this little factoid from a recent McAfee report generated quite a bit of media coverage, and even made TIME magazine's top stories list. But all is not as it seems, and aspects of the report may have been out of date before the report was even published. McAfee's study seems to be based on a year's worth of data, and last year was a particularly bad year for the Hong Kong domain, thanks to a gang of botnet spammers registering thousands of domains under the .hk ccTLD. These domains were most likely registered using stolen credit cards... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/hk_the_most_unsafe_domains">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-06-06T04:22:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Are Domain Name Portfolios Actually Worth What They Are Touted to Be? (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/domain_name_portfolios_worth</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/domain_name_portfolios_worth</link>
			<description><![CDATA[According to a <a href="http://domainnamewire.com/2007/08/07/tucows-revenues-come-up-short-stock-tumbles/">recent article</a> in Domain Name Wire, "shares of domain name company Tucows are down over 15% in early trading after announcing earnings." Elliot Noss, President and CEO of Tucows, says: "We delivered solid financial performance in the second quarter, which benefited from the sale of a block of 2,500 domain names from our portfolio." <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/domain_name_portfolios_worth">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2007-10-23T21:03:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> The New Hong Kong Anti-Spam Law, and a Small Fly in the Ointment (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/hong_kong_anti_spam_law</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/hong_kong_anti_spam_law</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Well, it has been quite a while since first the Hong Kong <a href="http://www.ofta.gov.hk">OFTA</a> (in 2004) and then <a href="http://www.citb.gov.hk">CITB</a> (in 2006) issued requests for public comment about a proposed UEM (Unsolicited Electronic Messaging) bill to be introduced in Hong Kong, for the purpose of regulating unsolicited email, telephone and fax solicitations. We're a large (worldwide) provider of email and spam filtering - but we're based in Hong Kong, and any regulation there naturally gets tracked by us rather more actively than laws elsewhere. We sent in our responses to both these agencies... The bill is becoming law now - and most of it looks good... There's one major fly in the ointment though... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/hong_kong_anti_spam_law">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2007-06-03T09:33:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> EFF and Its Use of Propaganda: Could Karl Rove do better? Probably (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/eff_use_of_propaganda_karl_rove</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/eff_use_of_propaganda_karl_rove</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The latest post on <a href="http://www2.dearaol.com/blog">DearAOL's blog</a>, by EFF activist coordinator Danny O'Brien, is titled "The Shakedown Begins". In short, Danny receives email from overstock.com on an AOL mailbox -- email that he apparently paid overstock $29.95 to receive. And that email arrives with Goodmail certification that AOL recognizes and flags as such. Danny seems to think this is not the sort of email that should be certified by Goodmail, and that AOL should not suddenly turn on Goodmail certification. Suddenly? <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/eff_use_of_propaganda_karl_rove">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2006-05-12T07:20:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> EFF on Goodmail: Further Confusing an Already Confused Issue (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/eff_on_goodmail_further_confusing_an_already_confused_issue</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/eff_on_goodmail_further_confusing_an_already_confused_issue</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Cindy's <a href="http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004398.php">piece on the EFF website</a> seems to be a bit of a pastiche, with elements taken out of various articles (some outright wrong, some merely misinformed) that have been doing the rounds of the media for quite a while now about Goodmail. She started off comparing AOL and Goodmail with the old email hoax about congress taxing email. That same line was used in a CircleID <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/aol_and_Goodmail_two_steps_back_for_email/">post</a> by Matt Blumberg, CEO & Chairman of Returnpath... Various other quotes from different places - Richard Cox from Spamhaus on CNN for example. However a lot of the quotes in those articles are being based on wrong or out of context assumptions, starting with one that goes "AOL is going to remove all its existing whitelists and force people to use Goodmail". <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/eff_on_goodmail_further_confusing_an_already_confused_issue">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2006-02-10T19:46:16-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Objections to .XXX, Attention in High Places (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/objections_to_xxx_attention_in_high_places</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/objections_to_xxx_attention_in_high_places</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Dot XXX is in for some interesting times, I fear. First the ICANN GAC chair Sharil Tarmizi is suggesting that more time be given for government and public policy feedback on .XXX. Objections certainly have started to come in from rather high places, such as from the US Department of Commerce. Personally speaking I'm inclined to be in favor of .XXX because it at least gives people in the adult entertainment industry their own online space and a stronger voice (gTLD)... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/objections_to_xxx_attention_in_high_places">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2005-08-16T07:48:29-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Actions Required by Developing Economies Against Spam (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/actions_required_by_developing_economies_against_spam</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/actions_required_by_developing_economies_against_spam</link>
			<description><![CDATA[My OECD paper on spam problems in developing economies is now linked from the OECD Anti-Spam Toolkit page, as part of section 8 of the Anti-Spam Toolkit (Outreach). This ZDNet article provides a reasonably good summary of my paper as well. I welcome comments and suggestions from CircleID readers. "Spam is a much more serious issue in developing countries as it is a heavy drain on resources that are scarcer and costlier in developing countries than elsewhere..." <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/actions_required_by_developing_economies_against_spam">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2005-05-29T09:38:07-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Port 25 Blocking, or Fix SMTP and Leave Port 25 Alone for the Sake of Spam? (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/port_25_blocking_or_fix_smtp_and_leave_port_25_alone_for_the_sake_of_spam</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/port_25_blocking_or_fix_smtp_and_leave_port_25_alone_for_the_sake_of_spam</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Larry Seltzer wrote an interesting article for eWeek, on port 25 blocking, the reasons why it was being advocated, and how it would stop spam. This quoted an excellent paper by Joe St.Sauver, that raised several technically valid and true corollaries that have to be kept in mind when blocking port 25 -- "cough syrup for lung cancer" would be a key phrase... Now, George Ou has just posted an article on ZDNET that disagrees with Larry's article, makes several points that are commonly cited when criticizing port 25 blocking, but then puts forward the astonishing, and completely wrong, suggestion, that worldwide SPF records are going to be a cure all for this problem. Here is my reply to him... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/port_25_blocking_or_fix_smtp_and_leave_port_25_alone_for_the_sake_of_spam">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2005-04-17T10:27:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
	</channel>
</rss>