Kevin, I agree in theory to your point but your argument does not take the scale of this situation into consideration. The .com extension is typically the most sought after extension. .Net is widely used for ISPs that have been most affected by operator processes that are / were in place for their users / network optimization.
This maneuver was not a violation DNS specification. However, this substantially more serious and market affecting than anything else that has happened so far. Lets forget about the hundreds of thousands of processes it disabled for a minute and just look at the possible legal violations of VeriSign's Registry Agreement. There are far reaching ramifications pertaining the search engine market as well (Hence the 100 million dollar antitrust lawsuit: http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/6818688.htm). I am not the owner of whois.sc. So, I would express your opinion directly to them. I posted that for the thousands of sysadmins that have had tens of thousands of processes break because of the unilateral change made by this wildcard implementation. I also point out that VeriBlind did this without ICANN approval. This has also prompted the IAB to release a commentary on the use of DNS wildcards: http://www.iab.org/documents/docs/2003-09-20-dns-wildcards.html This article makes no mention of VeriSign. Instead it says "Problems encountered in a recent experiment with wildcards" Today, ICANN has formerly asked VeriSlime to voluntarily suspend the Site Finder "service" pending an investigation that was ALREADY underway before the update was released. VeriMime has been strangely very quiet. I wonder why. Best Regards, Phillip B. Holmes -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Bilbee Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 12:31 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] VeriCrime I think for this to stick they need to change the letter to address the issue of other TLD systems that do the same thing. YOU are TARGETING one company when in fact others started this before Verisign with other TLDs. If this is what you actual believe on its technical merits/violation of the RFCs then the letter should be expanded to include all companies that manage TLD root servers that return and answer for non-existent domains. Although I think the letter makes good technical points, I think it is misplaced to reference only Verisign. I would sign a letter that includes all companies that manage TLD root servers that return answers for non-existent domain names. My two cents. Kevin Bilbee -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Phillip Holmes Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 7:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] VeriCrime Petition against VeriCrime's abuse of root operation: http://www.whois.sc/verisign-dns/ Best Regards, Phillip B. Holmes -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of serge Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 5:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Veriscam oops just found something in the archive, please disregard my question if it was already explained here in simple tems i will read the archives and see if i get it :) --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
