I have one question, and maybe I'm missing something: Why does the WHOIS result need to be easily machine-parsed?
Without ransacking the database, how would we use this? -- Lynn On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 21:18:36 +0100, Csongor Fagyal wrote: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> >>�For what it's worth I personally agree that the whois should have an >>�XML component. > >Yo my friend, drink vodka! > >>�But *NOT* until we creatively address the spammer issue. > >Well, for me, I do NOT need an e-mail address in the XML DTD, if that >makes anti-spammers happy :-) Let's make a new RFC for it or something, >it just sooo easy. I don't care if it is SOAP or gzipped XML or >whatever, but make it computer-readable. Optionally let the registar >modify the e-mails to ******@domain, I don' care, but to parse a >changing txt file (basically to achieve nothing) is something I find >unacceptable. > >>�Yes spammers will in the end get email addresses. But I firmly believe >>�there is more than enough intelectual horsepower among the internet >>�community to come up with a way to make whois mining intractable ..... > >Maybe: >- for "anonymous" users, limit the number of WHOIS requests to a very >small number / IP / day, and change e-mail addresses to ****@domain >- for "trusted" users (well, it is hard to define this... maybe this one >is not needed at all), limit the number of WHOIS requests from the same >user/day, and include e-mail addresses in the response > > >If you do a GET_DOMAIN (all_info) in the API, what you get is basically >XML WHOIS . Let's move all domains to OpenSRS and then we have to worry >no more ;-) > >- Cs.
