On 17-Sep-2003 M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > John Polstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >: On 16-Sep-2003 M. Warner Losh wrote: >: > I think we should put a filter for this nonsense into the base >: > system. Hack the resolve to filter out the adddress, and hack bind to >: > filter it out too. that way we can leverage our position in the name >: > servers in the world to do something about this BS. >: >: I think so too, in principle. But we need something better than a >: hard-coded IP address. It would take Verisign about an hour to figure >: out they need to change the address frequently. (Well, OK, a day ... >: it's Verisign, after all.) > > Agreed. but it wouldn't be too hard to determine at boot/hourly doing > a bogus query to find the address of the moment. Even they would be > hard pressed to change things more than hourly.
True, we could probably do it. I guess we'd have to generate a few random and unlikely queries, try them, and see if all/most of them resolve to the same address. Or maybe the to the same small set of addresses, depending on how determined Verisign is to make this work. I just _love_ how Verisign doesn't even have a reverse DNS record for that address. Jerks. I sincerely hope that for once, the herds of cattle who use AOL and MSN and think "internet" and "web" are synonyms will realize this just ain't right and raise a fuss about it. But given their meek response to spam, pop-ups, and spyware, I'm not all that optimistic. John _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"