- Case Number: a20091208.1
- Status: dismissed
- Claimants: Werner Dworak (SE), Florian E.
- Respondents: CAcert
- Case Manager: Alexander Prinsier
- Arbitrator: name arbitor
- Date of arbitration start: 200Y-MM-DD
- Date of ruling: 200Y-MM-DD
- Case closed: 200Y-MM-DD
- Complaint: Support Request for a project
> Dear Support Team > > >> After talking to Mr. X he advised me to drop you a support email > >> explaining my request. > > >> During the [...] I developed a project that was then funded > >> called "Community Sense Net" (http://www.csn.or.at). > >> The aim of this project is to provide statistics, software and > >> information on current threats. > > >> As part of the project a SMTP Honeypot was developed to catch malware > >> spreading through email. > > >> To broaden our view and to increase the likelihood that virus infected > >> spam ends up in our honeypot for analysis, I started to deploy bait mail > >> addresses in the form of > > >> <!-- firstname.lastname@example.org --> into pages with high volume. > > >> (the first 5 chars are site description and the following the activation > >> date on the page, bithalde.at is the domain whose mx record points to > >> the honeypot and that is used solely for this purpose). > > >> I would kindly request you to embed this surfer-invisible mail address > >> onto your cacert.org page.
- Relief: TBD
Before: Arbitrator name arbitor (A), Respondent: CAcert (R), Claimant: Werner Dworak (C1), Florian E (C2), Case: a20091208.1
2009-12-08 (UlrichSchroeter): added to wiki, request for CM / A
- 2009-12-08 (CM): taking as CM
- 2009-12-23 (CM): added summary of dispute
- 2009-12-23 (CM): sent mail to cacert-disputes asking if this dispute can be deleted as it doesn't seem to be a real dispute.
- 2009-12-23 (CM): No arbitrator was found willing to take this case. Case dismissed, notified claimant (Werner).
Interesting notes regarding this type of case:
> I don't think it's the right thing to pro-actively file a dispute to get > a ruling before anything is done. I agree with this. In this sense, Members should file disputes to get the ruling as oversight over what they want done, and not to get the Arbitrator to finish the job. If there is no clarity in what they want done, then it cannot be oversighted, almost by definition. > I suggest the board makes up it's > decision on this. Sure, in its executive capacity, it can be asked. Likely however the board will say no as well. Part of the problem is that the proposal is not apparently finished / clear, and therefore we can't confirm. Another part of the problem is that we don't have the resources right now to help other projects.