Internet

Strange domain stuff 3   Recently updated !

This entry was posted in Personal and tagged China Internet on by

Recently I got two emails concerning the use of the name “McGath” in Chinese domains. It’s very strange. Here’s the first, which I got on April 25, 2026:

(If you are not the CEO, please forward this message to your CEO since this is urgent. If you consider this has been sent to you in error, please ignore it. Thanks.)
Dear CEO,
This is a formal email. We are the Domain Registration Service company in Shanghai, China. I have an issue to confirm with you. An application was received by us from Yahui Ltd on April 25, 2026. They desire to register “mcgath” as their internet keyword and Chinese domain names (mcgath.cn, mcgath.com.cn, mcgath.net.cn, mcgath.org.cn). But after checking it, we find this name conflicts with your business name or brand name. To resolve this issue better, it’s necessary to send this email to you and verify if this company is your distributor in China? Best regardsFrank Liu
General Manager

The message came from 163.com, which is a Chinese email service often used for temporary addresses. It’s suspicious that the message doesn’t name the domain service which allegedly is contacting me. If this was an attempt to trick me into anything, I can’t tell what it could gain from me. I replied saying I have no business presence in China. On April 27 I got this mail:

To whom it concerns,

We are the company who submitted the application to register “mcgath” as Chinese domain name and internet keyword. We intend to register the Chinese domain names “mcgath.cn” “mcgath.com.cn” “mcgath.net.cn” “mcgath.org.cn” and internet keyword “mcgath” and have submitted our application. Currently, we are waiting for Mr. Frank Liu’s approval. These CN domains and internet keyword are very important for us to promote our business in China. Even though Mr. Frank Liu advised us to choose another name, we will persist with this name.

Kind regards

Lisheng

Even though my surname is unusual, I don’t own it and can’t stop anyone else from using it. However, I can’t think of any honest purpose for this. While I know little about the Chinese language, I’m pretty sure you can’t even pronounce the name properly in the Chinese phoneme set. Maybe they’re planning to squat on the name in the hope someone (like me) will buy the domain? I can’t grab up every possible domain that contains “mcgath.” A worse possibility is that they’re planning some impersonation scheme outside the reach of American lawyers. I can’t do anything about it before it happens, and it seems like a strange way to set up a scam.

All I can say right now is that I have no control over or connection with those domains, and I’m not responsible for whatever they do with them.

A note on comment notifications

This entry was posted in Administrative and tagged Internet WordPress on by

When a comment gets posted to my blog, the server sends me an email to let me know. In most cases it lands in my spam folder, and with good reason. WordPress is doing something dumb.

The email is using the “From” address which the commenter provided. With modern SPF, DMARC, and DKIM protocols, which are almost mandatory today, the owner of an email account indicates which servers are authorized to use its address. The receiving IMAP or POP server will check if it came from an authorized IP address. If it didn’t, the server may mark it as spam or block it completely. Failure to do authentication properly is one of the biggest reasons legitimate mail gets flagged.

People posting comments on my blog aren’t going to authorize my WordPress server to send email for them. When my personal email server gets a message with a “From” address that belongs to the commenter but a received-mail path that comes from the website server, it looks exactly like impersonation. Technically, it is.

I don’t know why WordPress does it this way. It could use a “From” address on garymcgath.com for comment notifications, and the mail would almost certainly get through.

This means I usually don’t see comment notifications, so it may take longer for me to reply. Sorry.

Reclaiming liberalism, revisited

This entry was posted in News and tagged Internet liberalism publishing writing on by

The words “liberal” and “liberty” look similar, and they come from a common root. At one time, the word referred to the advocacy of liberty. In the middle of the twentieth century, particularly in the USA, it took on a different meaning, advocacy of government as the solution to everything. The pendulum is swinging, back, though. As I noted in my earlier post on “reclaiming liberalism,” advocates of liberty and justice under law are being attacked as “liberals.” Meanwhile, the government-solves-everything bunch now prefers to call itself “progressive.” They’re vague on what they’re progressing toward.

I’m bringing this up again because the Institute for Humane Studies has launched an exciting new website, Liberalism.org. Many of the names on it will be familiar to advocates of liberty: Jason Kuznicki, Aaron Ross Powell, Radley Balko, Ilya Somin, Sarah Skwire, and others. And they pay for articles! I need to look into that. Their choosing to label the site liberal rather than libertarian is significant. While there are still overtly libertarian individuals and organizations fighting a good fight, the Libertarian Party has damaged the name by accommodating populists. It’s time to say that we, not the Democratic Party, are the real liberals.

Gagging social media in Methuen 4

This entry was posted in Censorship and tagged censorship Internet liberty libraries on by

The city of Methuen, Massachusetts, has adopted a resolution to restrict access to social media on city-owned devices. The announcement states that “City-owned devices and networks in City buildings and City-run youth programs will limit access to social media for minors under 16 whenever feasible.” This would clearly apply to Methuen’s Nevins Library, which provides computers for public use.

The statement has the tone of fanaticism that’s gone so far over the edge that it doesn’t even require yelling; of course every reasonable person will agree with it, won’t you? It’s FOR THE CHILDREN! The council favorably cites Australia’s total ban on use of social media by anyone under 16. The statement expresses hope for nationwide restrictions: “The Council also formally endorsed Mayor Beauregard’s commitment to advocate for state and federal policies that restrict social media access for children under 16 and strengthen youth digital safety protections nationwide.”

It’s the familiar idea that libraries should reject or restrict access to anything deemed “harmful to minors,” where “harmful” has a very broad definition. It’s the same mindset that demands they keep all books on certain topics away from kids’ eyes.

Nevins Memorial Library, Methuen, Mass.On Saturday I went to tne Nevins Library to find out how it’s going to be affected. The people working there said they hadn’t received any direct communication, even though the impact will fall most heavily on them. They don’t know what’s going to be expected of them.

The term “social media” can encompass any Internet service that enables public conversation. Restrictions on using social media are restrictions on discussion. Sometimes these discussions are vitally important to young people, especially if they’re dealing with domestic abuse or have issues they’re afraid to raise with their parents. They can help to get information for personal or educational reasons, and often people make friends from distant places and different cultures.

A lot of basic information is found on social media. YouTube is generally considered a social media site; anyone can upload videos, and most of them are open for comments. Many businesses use their Facebook page as their main Internet presence. Telling kids they can’t use these sites or subjecting them to heavy restrictions will cut them off from a lot of information.

The present situation is reminiscent of panics in which kids had to be “protected” from novels, comic books, rock’n’roll, TV, and video games. Who will protect us from the protectors?

Thoughts on the four dark laws of engagement

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged Internet SanityProject on by

Derek Thompson has listed four “dark laws of online engagement” that explain a lot of what’s wrong with social media, and perhaps a significant part of what’s wrong with America. He discusses their effect on people, especially young men, who are socially isolated. I’d like to look at the way they distort the information that we get on the Internet.
(more…)