Subject: Fwd: Please approve a mailing list or inform me how to Create a mailing list for discussing these projects

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 23:39:56 -0600

There are two mistakes in this email i send, i have no idea whether  
its my fast typing or error introduced by my ISP or service provider  
delivering my emails.

I typed intelligence or artificial intelligence

The spammers email who extorted 850 dollars from me in 2015 and that  
resulted me cashless and harmed by my relatives in palakkad for six  
months and resulting
deactivation of my website and loss of my postings for years i typed
[email-masked]

I have proposed an email whois draft to control spam and cybercrime  
using emails.

A new version of I-D, draft-emailwhois-pradeepkumarxplorer-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Pradeep Kumar Xplorer and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:                draft-emailwhois-pradeepkumarxplorer
Revision:        00
Title:                Extensions to WHois service to allow query on  
email identities
Document date:        2018-07-24
Group:                Individual Submission
Pages:                4
URL:             
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-emailwhois-pradeepkumarxplorer-00.txt
Status:          
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-emailwhois-pradeepkumarxplorer/
Htmlized:        
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-emailwhois-pradeepkumarxplorer-00
Htmlized:        
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-emailwhois-pradeepkumarxplorer

Abstract:
     This document describes the need for a WHois email address service
     similar to the internet domainname WHois service. Theres a need for
     a registered email address as opposed to non-registered email address
     to fight internet SPAM, as well as encouraging email use for personal,
     commercial and legal and all kinds of purposes.An internet user
     can have multiple email identities.

I need professional service from ISP and cannot dispute with them at the risk
of losing my emails.

Pradeep Kumar XPlorer

----- Forwarded message from [email-masked] -----
    Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 07:12:50 -0600
    From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Please approve a mailing list or inform me how to Create  
a mailing list for discussing these projects
      To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]

Quick reply
Please see http://www.pradeepkumarxplorer.com/YogaSequence.txt. Its  
what i as a blogger typed in. I tried to Create an HTML and stopped  
because of some mistakes
half way through as it was tiring and time consuming to search and  
markup. Even using browser extensions, Creating an HTML out of this  
manually can take enough time to be discouraged. I am saying i want  
what can be computationally done at the server side done at the server  
side. If intelligent software has already been Created as browser  
extension, then it has to be available reused
in the server side.

Quoting [email-masked]:

> On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 07:13:42 -0600, [email-masked] said:
>
>> What i proposed is when user types httpi://www.pradeepkumarxplorer.com
>> the information served by pradeepkumarxplorer.com httpd tunnels
>> through another
>> httpi that could be any solution server side scripting that shows the
>> viewer of the information with additional links suggested by the WWW
>> Brain.
>
> 1) No definition of "WWW Brain".
I dont accept your answer. WWW and software has evolved with  
Artificial intelligence
big companies like google use Artificial intelligence. I would say i  
dont have to
define it for engineers. Its Intelligence of Artificial intelligence i  
am meaning.
You have to answer me as a WWW user and not just an engineer.

> 2) If anything, the Web is already *full* of "You may also like..." links
> added by the server side.  Quite obviously:
>   2a) they don't need an httpi:// to insert them
>   2b) they aren't very expensive to insert
>   2c) There's browser extensions to *remove* these
> 3) Therefor, the proper place for adding "additional links" is  
> obviously at the
> user browser end - and there's extensions that will do this sort of thing
> without need of an 'httpi://' protocol definition

This is like saying to buy whats needed for my home, i have to enter  
five markets
instead of one supermarket. WHo enforces that one Supermarket has soy  
milk, orange juice, cornflakes, cheese and eggs. If i have to visit  
more than one more market to satisfy my shopping needs, then its  
inefficient. I as a WIndows Personal computer android user have  
supported the companies that manufacture and market them so i have a  
right to demand that they ship efficient solutions and httpi is more  
efficient than browser extensions.Does IETF enforce any such, then  
they have to enforce this implementation and all httpd services tunnel  
through httpi.
>
> If these additional hyperlinks are something that's to be under user control,
> it's a matter for the browser creators to add a configuration options or
> way for an extension to interact and do the searching. And that will  
> be different
> for Chrome, or Firefox, or Edge, or a MacOS or iOS browser and thus
> not an IETF issue.
The User can always search more, if intelligent profiling can show me  
what i want
in the first place, then its a better user experience.
>
> For a worked example:
>
> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/highlight-to-search/floipahigmmkfhkoapmnijnlnboniglg?hl=en
>
> Highlight the text on the page, and it will go a Google search for  
> more info. No httpi:// needed.
>
> You'll have to explain what problem you're trying to solve that isn't
> already solved.  In addition, you need to explain why a new on-the-network
> protocol (which is what the IETF does) is needed, when it's already been
> demonstrated to be doable without any new protocols or anything else
> that is done by the IETF.
Again, its the same market / supermarket analogy. If i have to enter  
five different markets to purchase my eggs, cheese, coffee, soy milk  
and chocolate then it solves the problem but in a dump and inefficient  
way.
>
>> This saves thousands of hours and possibly millions of dollars for
>> website Creators from manually hypertexting their files using whatever
>> tools like Hypothesiser or many browser extensions available.
>
> Not really. A site that insists on adding their own links will still  
> add their
> own links, no matter what the user signals.  Remember - if your "www brain"
> extension is able to find keywords in the page and add additional links,
> the web server can *also* do the same thing without an httpi:// - and so
> can the user's browser (and probably better, because the user's browser
> can query a site like Google that can make better suggestions because it
> knows what previous queries the user has done...)

Yes, but this is for websites that dont add their links. This is  
consolidation of intelligent searches in one place httpid or httpd  
tunneling through httpi.
>
>> WHat i proposed in my second draft is a switch on the server side that
>> prevents an unauthenticated user from seeing any information and
>> authentication means
>
> First off, if it's a switch on the server side, it's a server  
> configuration issue,
> not an IETF issue.  The way to specify that switch, and how it works, will
> be different for Apache, or ngnix, or IIS, or Squid, or anything else that
> is functioning as a web server or proxy.

No its not configuration issue. I want it enforced that WWW servers  
are mandated to have the option of allowing only authenticated users  
to be served information. I am saying Solaris should not be allowed to  
ship if it does not have that Option.I am a website publisher for last  
14 years and till todate i dont know who views my website and they are  
exploiting me and have harmed me and trying to kill me to exploit the  
WWW subscriber help. This is insider fraud by companies like facebook.  
I have Created something unique and definitely usable by millions. If  
you look at my facebook page http://www.facebook.com/lugimwidnaus only  
one likes it but i have had thousands of viewers  
http://www.pradeepkumarxplorer.com/2016/regions.txt. Its a  
misreprsentation by organised crime. ANd i have had no solution from  
cyberauthorities who might have tools to find out who is accessing my  
website as they are partner to it for money. I dont need that headache  
if i can enforce it using my WWW server. I used shared hosting and its  
something my ISP has to provide in control panel. This enforcement is  
to fight cybercrime.And that IETF should take a serious role in. If  
not which organisation can i propose projects to.

Why is facebook and google 500 Billion dollar companies and me not  
being able to get even a single email from a viewer or subscriber help  
and have no income and has to depend on a mother at the age of 48. I  
am Ubermens and an Ex SUN employee. This is serious crime that has  
destroyed my life.I am saying facebook and google cannot do whatever  
they want. My Ex company seeded Google. I have no income from them nor  
Options enough to publish and not care about subscriber help given to  
me while i was employed in SUN. Someone is claiming i am wealthy and  
continuing the theft and now they want to get away with it and they  
would influence IETF not to approve my draft.
They have attacked me using my mother and her relatives in palakkad  
who are not my society as an adult. I should be in New age california  
with yogins and softwares.Instead i am stuck in palakkad ,only  
information about me is in my own website and i cannot hold  
accountable who has enjoyed my website guidance and journals.The  
viewers are not putting links in their website about my website. I am  
operating publsihing my website as an individual and a clever harmful  
community is claiming it as their creation and exploiting me.IETF did  
not accept my whois email proposal either. IETF is a place where  
engineers from many companies work together to comeup with usable safe  
efficient internet. They have not delivered a SafE internet.
>
> And the user *SHOULD NOT* (in the RFC sense) be specifying information
> to override the server's decision.
>
> Again - there's absolutely nothing stopping the server from doing  
> whatever sort
> of authentication it wants to, and there's no need for IETF action.

IETF has to enforce either only authenticated users access WWW or  
allow a choice of both anonymous and authenticated. I have no problems  
with private surfing but it should be the choice of the publisher and  
not the browser.

> Webservers
> can already do sufficient authentication - and a case can be made  
> that it's not
> the IETF's job to specify that authentication.
>
> The short summary - you're not going to get an IETF list to discuss either
> draft until such time as you show that it's something that is an  
> IETF issue to
> deal with.  And given that both drafts address things that have already been
> done without any IETF action, it's unlikely you'll be able to show that the
> IETF needs to do anything.

I am saying IETF should enforce companies to role out products that  
prevent cybercrime. efcc.nigeria.org@representative among three more  
emails have spammed
me and extorted money from me and had me almost killed me and  
destroyed my website.
They are funded by the anonymous criminals viewing my website and has  
taken the money from viewers who can pay or from companies that i have  
been involved in the past.
I would say a WHOIS email registry implemented and EMail services only  
forwarding
emails from authenticated users would have prevented me recieving such SPAMs.
I dont get SPAMMED in [email-masked] or  
[email-masked], if they are not SPAM the  
clever thieves has made me work 14 years and extorted few billions  
dollars of cash and now they want me to die in India.An email registry  
and modifications to email software can definitely prevent SPAM and  
that i think an organisation like IETF should enforce.
>
>> but someone from ietf.org has deleted my email [email-masked] and
>> i had to use my other email [email-masked]. There's no way  
>> to say in
>> internet that [email-masked] and [email-masked] are the
>> same individual thats me
>
> 1) The deletion may be a hint that somebody at the IETF doesn't want  
> to hear from
> you because your mails aren't related to the IETF.
>
>
Pradeep Kumar Xplorer

----- End forwarded message -----