What just happened at One Wilshire?
Anyone have any further info?
RE: www.gigablast.com
> What gigablast seems to be doing, on the other hand, is trying to open > every window in a house in the hopes that it will find one that's open. Just looking at the text strings in the URLs, my off-the-top-of-my-head guess was that those were URLs it saw in email spam. They looked very similar to a lot of the ascii-garbage that gets generated by spammers trying to get through bayesian filters. It seemed plausible to me (not a good idea, of course, but the sort of thing that happens) that they might have been grepping web pages for URLs, and run across an archive of spam. -Bill
Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...
On July 13, 2006 at 13:15 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Payne) wrote: > > > On Jul 13, 2006, at 12:19 PM, Joe Greco wrote: > > > I don't really think it is entirely appropriate that a child who is > > looking > > for information on the White House could land somewhere obscene > > through > > entering a web address that appears obvious and logical. > > Who gets to decide that? I don't think it's entirely appropriate that a child chasing a bouncey-ball can so easily run out into the street and get killed by a passing car. According to MMWR over 500 children per year under 14 years of age wander out into the street and and are killed by a car (US.) Another 30,000+/year are injured seriously enough to need an emergency room visit. Ban cars or at least limit them to under 5 mph! And we're not just talking about a kid seeing some bare breasts (isn't kids seeing bare breasts the most appropriate use of bare breasts?), we're talking DEAD. Or maybe the better answer is: Don't let your young kids wander out into traffic, or allow them to use table saws, etc. Sarcasm aside isn't the right answer, for starters, software interfaces for kids? -- -Barry Shein The World | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Login: Nationwide Software Tool & Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...
> On Jul 13, 2006, at 12:19 PM, Joe Greco wrote: > > I don't really think it is entirely appropriate that a child who is > > looking > > for information on the White House could land somewhere obscene > > through > > entering a web address that appears obvious and logical. > > Who gets to decide that? If you were reading along, you would have noted that I was using it to lead into an example of why some sort of "net nanny" DNS service might be at least moderately successful, in which case - they would. I notice you conveniently clipped all of that out of my note. There are at least 101 other ways to accomplish the same thing; personally, I don't believe in allowing children on the Internet unsupervised in the first place(*). The possible exception to supervision might be a carefully constructed whitelist system of some sort that restricted activities to known-safe sites, which is what some schools do. Who knows, there might be a market for such a thing implemented via DNS. Apparently you didn't quite get that point, apologies for any misunderstanding. I see *significantly* more potential in that sort of a service offering than I do a mere "SiteFinder" type of service, but the success or failure of such a service is dependent on whether or not there are fundamental flaws in the underlying concept of the OpenDNS strategy. (*) I'll further note that even strategies such as supervision can fail when confronted with something like "whitehouse.com." So, here are some thoughts. 1) A DNS service provider could provide the virtual equivalent of "NOGGIN on the Web", listing the Top 1000 kid-safe destinations on the Web, and referring any other domain lookups back to the search engine, which in turn only lists the Top 1000 kid-safe destinations. 2) A DNS service provider could provide the equivalent of Google's safe-search, where sites that are known not to be kid-safe, plus phishing sites, plus maybe new domain registrations, are instead referred to the search engine, which lists most of the rest of the Internet. Both of these assume that it is all right to alter the DNS in a manner more invasive than what OpenDNS appears to be doing. Both of them are in fact models which could potentially generate direct user revenue. I am not advocating it, I am just contemplating the possibilities. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...
Divining user intent is better handled in the user application where such intent was stated rather than in the infrastructure (DNS)If the service wants to help (human) users find their way to the web sites they "intended" to get to .. isn't a better solution the one already offered by many search engines- which is to prompt the user with a questionDid you mean ... ( offers corrected spelling) ?Perhaps you meant to go to (list of sites follows) ?This alerts the user that they made a mistake, and lets them pick another action from the application they used in the first place (application local behaviour)If so, the solution belongs in the browser and not in DNS where it may have unintended consequences. Some browsers will let you specify the action that should follow if the URL in question could not be found, and if not this functionality could be rolled into a useful plugin or extension. (Yes, this approach is not without its detractors - http://news.com.com/Microsoft+gives+error+pages+new+direction/2100-1023_3-272578.html ) ~
RE: Sitefinder II, the sequel...
Joe Greco: > I don't really think it is entirely appropriate that a child > who is looking for information on the White House could land > somewhere obscene through entering a web address that appears > obvious and logical. Personally, I don't really think it is entirely appropriate that a child who is looking for obscentiy could land on the White House site inadvertantly. Matthew Kaufman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...
At 12:32 PM -0400 7/13/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 11:48:55 EDT, "Patrick W. Gilmore" said: >> >> On Jul 13, 2006, at 11:35 AM, Larry Smith wrote: >> >> >> Is it? If you type "fobar" and the domain does not exist, is it rude >> >> to return foobar? Or is it helpful? >> > >> > Hmmm, while a "good" question - how about another example, >> > someone mistypes whitehouse.gov - do you return the "real" >> > whitehouse.gov or >> > the whitehouse.com site ??? >> >> Note: "and the domain does not exist". Whitehouse.gov absolutely >> exists. > >So... I enter "whitehorse.gov". Who wins, the guy at 1600 Pennsylvania, >or the guy who's got whitehorse.com parked at GoDaddy? Depends on what each has paid for the ad placement? An what happens when this gets it's first big competitor? If they have any success at all, there will surely be more of them. You as a business owner will have to stake out search prominence in each. Kind of back to having to get a name in every top level to protect yourself. >I can see this as being *loads* of fun in combination with browsers >that auto-complete URLs for you (I know of at least one that will keep >auto-completing a typo in preference to what you *wanted*. Blech. ;) > >"Where do you want to go today?" :) Indeed. >Attachment converted: Kayak:Untitled 79 (/) (0045831D) Cheers, -- Ken Eddings, Hostmaster, IS&T, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work:+1 408 974-4286, Cell: +1 408 425-3639, Fax: +1 408 974-3103 Apple Computer, Inc., 1 Infinite Loop, M/S 60-MS Cupertino, CA 95014 The Prudent Mariner never relies solely on any single aid to navigation.
Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...
On Jul 13, 2006, at 12:19 PM, Joe Greco wrote: I don't really think it is entirely appropriate that a child who is looking for information on the White House could land somewhere obscene through entering a web address that appears obvious and logical. Who gets to decide that?
Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 11:48:55 EDT, "Patrick W. Gilmore" said: > > On Jul 13, 2006, at 11:35 AM, Larry Smith wrote: > > >> Is it? If you type "fobar" and the domain does not exist, is it rude > >> to return foobar? Or is it helpful? > > > > Hmmm, while a "good" question - how about another example, > > someone mistypes whitehouse.gov - do you return the "real" > > whitehouse.gov or > > the whitehouse.com site ??? > > Note: "and the domain does not exist". Whitehouse.gov absolutely > exists. So... I enter "whitehorse.gov". Who wins, the guy at 1600 Pennsylvania, or the guy who's got whitehorse.com parked at GoDaddy? I can see this as being *loads* of fun in combination with browsers that auto-complete URLs for you (I know of at least one that will keep auto-completing a typo in preference to what you *wanted*. Blech. ;) "Where do you want to go today?" :) pgp9XJeRm8Yz1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Mark Jeftovic wrote: > > Larry Smith wrote: > > > > > In > > > school if you spell the word tree as tre - hopefully your teacher corrects > > > this. > > > > Yes, hopefully a correction is made in a safe manner. As opposed to the > > teacher smothering your face with a pornographic magazine or shoving a > > lit firecracker up your ass. > > > > Cause when you spell a word incorrectly on the internet, that's what > > frequently occurs. > > That's a tad over dramatic isn't it? Typosquatting is a problem, sure, > some of it is annoying, sure. Never has my derrier exploded though from > it... I don't really think it is entirely appropriate that a child who is looking for information on the White House could land somewhere obscene through entering a web address that appears obvious and logical. What I could see happening, down the road, if this service is successful, would be the creation of a nameserver service company that would be targetted at creating a safer (note: not _safe_, merely safe_r_) Internet where requests for certain names could be redirected to the search engine instead. Yes, there are lots of political, legal, ethical, and moral questions associated with that. I am not advocating it, I am just saying I could see the case for it happening. > Perhaps part of the 'safe manner' is actually teaching people that using > their favorite search engine to locate 'fobar tool enterprises' is often > more productive than 'www.fobartools.com' placement in the 'location bar' > is? Boy, at that point, I think you've got the basis of an argument against additional top level domains. 2LD domain names have some value: I can see the value in "ibm.com" and "apple.com", due to the geographic scope of those companies and their overall size. However, I do not see "martyspizza.com" as the ideal candidate for a .com: why should that resolve to a Santa Barbara pizzeria and not our local one? The value of a 2LD domain name is obviousness, and when the obviousness is no longer present or not valid to begin with, the search engine methodology is more likely to be valid and useful than simply choosing to name your business "martyspizzaofbrookfield.com" or "martyspizza.biz". In Marty's case, they don't even have a domain name, but you can find their web page easily enough via search engines. Of course, this leaves some questions, such as what happens for e-mail purposes (3LD? works) or when the business model of the search engines change, and search engines start charging for listings, etc. But in general, I agree that search engines may be safer. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...
On 13 Jul 2006, at 16:48, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On Jul 13, 2006, at 11:35 AM, Larry Smith wrote: [...] Hmmm, while a "good" question - how about another example, someone mistypes whitehouse.gov - do you return the "real" whitehouse.gov or the whitehouse.com site ??? Note: "and the domain does not exist". Whitehouse.gov absolutely exists. I don't think that was quite what was meant. Suppose the user typed "whitehouse.cov"?
Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > > just as your > > teacher would by allowing you to mis-spell words instead of > > learning the > > correct way > > I think that's going a bit far. > > By that token, we should lobby Microsoft to take spel chickers out of > MS Word. we should absolutely lobby MS to remove that functionality, in all their products. I think the bigger issue is retooling folks to understand that just dropping any-old thing into a 'location' bar is just not useful some large percentage of the time. Using the other online tools available though is: use google, msnsearch, yahoo, blah-search-engine-de-jour. Just putting in 'fobartools.com' is likely to not get you the content you desire.
Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Mark Jeftovic wrote: > Larry Smith wrote: > > > In > > school if you spell the word tree as tre - hopefully your teacher corrects > > this. > > Yes, hopefully a correction is made in a safe manner. As opposed to the > teacher smothering your face with a pornographic magazine or shoving a > lit firecracker up your ass. > > Cause when you spell a word incorrectly on the internet, that's what > frequently occurs. That's a tad over dramatic isn't it? Typosquatting is a problem, sure, some of it is annoying, sure. Never has my derrier exploded though from it... Perhaps part of the 'safe manner' is actually teaching people that using their favorite search engine to locate 'fobar tool enterprises' is often more productive than 'www.fobartools.com' placement in the 'location bar' is? Just like learning how to use a phonebook instead of random dialing, or encyclopedia's as opposed to blind searching of the dewey decimal system? -Chris
Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher L. Morrow) [Thu 13 Jul 2006, 16:55 CEST]: So If grandma Jane goes to fobar.com (which gets corrected/redirected/blah) to foobar.com and sees some content she really likes she may tell grandma June. Grandma June goes to fobar.com and gets the IE error message saying 'site does not exist. She calls her ISP to find out why the site is down. This is a very oversimplified example, I admit. It does show a simple example though of inconsistency and why that could be 'bad' or atleast problematic. (It might also argue for universal adoption of this technology, which I still 'just dont like', which also might be the crazy pills) I don't think it's such a good example. Here's why: The redirect from fobar.com to foobar.com doesn't happen on a DNS level. This is a good thing, as name-based virtual hosting wouldn't work anymore. So instead of getting the MSIE search page Jane gets the OpenDNS search page, can select foobar.com and then read out the URL in her browser's Location bar to June. (ironically, www.fobar.com is an alias for ad.funnel.revenuedirect.com.akadns.net.) -- Niels.
Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...
On Jul 13, 2006, at 11:35 AM, Larry Smith wrote: Is it? If you type "fobar" and the domain does not exist, is it rude to return foobar? Or is it helpful? Hmmm, while a "good" question - how about another example, someone mistypes whitehouse.gov - do you return the "real" whitehouse.gov or the whitehouse.com site ??? Note: "and the domain does not exist". Whitehouse.gov absolutely exists. As a purist, I can see saying that's wrong. As a user, they like easy. Hell, most of them us Windows & Outlook, so they clearly don't care about things like "standards". Since they pay our bills, should we listen to them? Also true, and while I agree in "principle", if you transpose only two numbers on your next deposit ticket - is it the banks responsibility to put the money in the correct account - or is it simply your mistake?? Does the other account exist? And should the bank be checking the name <-> account # association? I would argue they should. (But know they do not.) Either way, not really the same thing, IMHO. Can someone show the Internet is going to collapse, or at least be harmed, by being "rude" in this way? I don't think the "net" is going to collapse, but I do think that many of the "things" being done are simply "making" (allowing/enabling/ supporting) end users to be more and more lazy or what-ever term you want to apply. In school if you spell the word tree as tre - hopefully your teacher corrects this. What we seem to be doing is saying it is ok to not know how to spell or even know what or where you want to go on the net - and I am not certain that in the long term we are not doing more "harm" than good - just as your teacher would by allowing you to mis-spell words instead of learning the correct way I think that's going a bit far. By that token, we should lobby Microsoft to take spel chickers out of MS Word. -- TTFN, patrick
Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...
Larry Smith wrote: In school if you spell the word tree as tre - hopefully your teacher corrects this. Yes, hopefully a correction is made in a safe manner. As opposed to the teacher smothering your face with a pornographic magazine or shoving a lit firecracker up your ass. Cause when you spell a word incorrectly on the internet, that's what frequently occurs. -mark -- Mark Jeftovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Founder & President, easyDNS Technologies Inc. ph. +1-(416)-535-8672 ext 225 fx. +1-(866) 273-2892
Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...
On Thursday 13 July 2006 10:18, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > On Jul 13, 2006, at 10:48 AM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > >> That said, no one has yet said why it is necessary, or even > >> desirable, to have a completely homogenous view of the world. > > > > I'd use one example reason of why: "Customer Service issues" > > Thanx, Chris, I was waiting for someone to give this answer. (And I > couldn't figure out why no one had! :) > > I don't really have a good answer. I'm not sure it's a HUUGE > problem, but I can see the argument. > > Perhaps someone associated with the service can give a better answer? > > > In general inconsistency is troubling to folks, I think, and in > > recursive > > DNS it's especially difficult to see as 'good' since that 'service' > > is not > > universal (not all owned/operated by one entity). In the case of > > authoritative DNS though, you are (or anyone, not just Patrick) > > free to > > goof with responses as you (or anyone) see's fit... you are afterall > > 'authoritative' for the record. In the recursive land it may be > > viewed as > > 'rude' or 'out of spec' (perhaps this is paul's issue?) to fake > > answers > > to questions. > > Is it? If you type "fobar" and the domain does not exist, is it rude > to return foobar? Or is it helpful? Hmmm, while a "good" question - how about another example, someone mistypes whitehouse.gov - do you return the "real" whitehouse.gov or the whitehouse.com site ??? > As a purist, I can see saying that's wrong. As a user, they like > easy. Hell, most of them us Windows & Outlook, so they clearly don't > care about things like "standards". Since they pay our bills, should > we listen to them? Also true, and while I agree in "principle", if you transpose only two numbers on your next deposit ticket - is it the banks responsibility to put the money in the correct account - or is it simply your mistake?? > Can someone show the Internet is going to collapse, or at least be > harmed, by being "rude" in this way? I don't think the "net" is going to collapse, but I do think that many of the "things" being done are simply "making" (allowing/enabling/supporting) end users to be more and more lazy or what-ever term you want to apply. In school if you spell the word tree as tre - hopefully your teacher corrects this. What we seem to be doing is saying it is ok to not know how to spell or even know what or where you want to go on the net - and I am not certain that in the long term we are not doing more "harm" than good - just as your teacher would by allowing you to mis-spell words instead of learning the correct way -- Larry Smith SysAd ECSIS.NET [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...
On Jul 13, 2006, at 10:48 AM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: That said, no one has yet said why it is necessary, or even desirable, to have a completely homogenous view of the world. I'd use one example reason of why: "Customer Service issues" Thanx, Chris, I was waiting for someone to give this answer. (And I couldn't figure out why no one had! :) I don't really have a good answer. I'm not sure it's a HUUGE problem, but I can see the argument. Perhaps someone associated with the service can give a better answer? In general inconsistency is troubling to folks, I think, and in recursive DNS it's especially difficult to see as 'good' since that 'service' is not universal (not all owned/operated by one entity). In the case of authoritative DNS though, you are (or anyone, not just Patrick) free to goof with responses as you (or anyone) see's fit... you are afterall 'authoritative' for the record. In the recursive land it may be viewed as 'rude' or 'out of spec' (perhaps this is paul's issue?) to fake answers to questions. Is it? If you type "fobar" and the domain does not exist, is it rude to return foobar? Or is it helpful? As a purist, I can see saying that's wrong. As a user, they like easy. Hell, most of them us Windows & Outlook, so they clearly don't care about things like "standards". Since they pay our bills, should we listen to them? Can someone show the Internet is going to collapse, or at least be harmed, by being "rude" in this way? -- TTFN, patrick
Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > > That said, no one has yet said why it is necessary, or even > desirable, to have a completely homogenous view of the world. > I'd use one example reason of why: "Customer Service issues" So If grandma Jane goes to fobar.com (which gets corrected/redirected/blah) to foobar.com and sees some content she really likes she may tell grandma June. Grandma June goes to fobar.com and gets the IE error message saying 'site does not exist. She calls her ISP to find out why the site is down. This is a very oversimplified example, I admit. It does show a simple example though of inconsistency and why that could be 'bad' or atleast problematic. (It might also argue for universal adoption of this technology, which I still 'just dont like', which also might be the crazy pills) In general inconsistency is troubling to folks, I think, and in recursive DNS it's especially difficult to see as 'good' since that 'service' is not universal (not all owned/operated by one entity). In the case of authoritative DNS though, you are (or anyone, not just Patrick) free to goof with responses as you (or anyone) see's fit... you are afterall 'authoritative' for the record. In the recursive land it may be viewed as 'rude' or 'out of spec' (perhaps this is paul's issue?) to fake answers to questions. I wonder about performance and impact and the legittimacy of replying to a 'typo' that isn't really a 'typo' ? The claims to 'fix phishing' (phishing protection) that is doing things like knowing what a phishing name is, I presume this works on some list of names currently in use (from antiphishing.org for example) Is there a timeout on these entries? What about names that are the shared host for lots of users? (members.aol.com for instance) There are a host if issues here, simple typo correction isn't going to find/solve/know about most of them. At the right level of the hierarchy this service certainly could be 'nice' (or not objectionable) the choice part is a big 'nice' for the service, I admit. I find it hard to believe an enterprise or MSO would offer this as a blanket answer though, again crazy-pills might be acting up again though. -chris
Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...
Going off on something of a tangent, I'd be really curious what sort of efforts OpenDNS are making/will need to make in order to limit their servers' utility as a relay for amplification attacks (which I'm listening to a discussion on at IETF as I type). http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsop-reflectors-are- evil-01.txt On Jul 13, 2006, at 8:08 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On Jul 13, 2006, at 3:39 AM, Simon Waters wrote: Most of those I know try to deploy recursive services as close as possible to the client, avoiding where possible alternative views of the DNS, and forwarding. Would that everyone did what the people you know do. Unfortunately, there are a few providers doing things like outsourcing their recursive service to, say, their upstream, or having one "node" of recursive servers anywhere in the world for all their end users. These providers violate the first part of your sentence. The second part doesn't make any sense to me. It seems that having multiple, geographically disparate recursive name servers would be more likely to present an "alternative [view] of the DNS". (In fact, I can prove that's true in at least some cases. :) So you are actually arguing -against- your first point. That said, no one has yet said why it is necessary, or even desirable, to have a completely homogenous view of the world. Perhaps time to ask Brad, Paul and Cricket what they think, and have answers to their comments. Perhaps. However, in the last DNS related thread, Paul made a pretty strong claim (violating a protocol) and showed exactly _ZERO_ facts to back it up, despite being asked at least five times (by my count). With automated responses to "bad things", it is usually best to minimise the scope of the change. Similarly typo correction makes sense for URLs, but not for most other uses of the DNS (hence the proviso you make to switch it off if you use RBL, although I'd say switch it off for all email servers less you start correcting spambot crud, our email servers make a DNS check on the senders domain, that doesn't want correcting either), so the answer is probably browser plug-in (although most browsers already try to guess what you meant to some extent). Perhaps something as simple as a preference only 'correcting' queries that begin with "www"? -- TTFN, patrick
Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...
On Jul 13, 2006, at 3:39 AM, Simon Waters wrote: Most of those I know try to deploy recursive services as close as possible to the client, avoiding where possible alternative views of the DNS, and forwarding. Would that everyone did what the people you know do. Unfortunately, there are a few providers doing things like outsourcing their recursive service to, say, their upstream, or having one "node" of recursive servers anywhere in the world for all their end users. These providers violate the first part of your sentence. The second part doesn't make any sense to me. It seems that having multiple, geographically disparate recursive name servers would be more likely to present an "alternative [view] of the DNS". (In fact, I can prove that's true in at least some cases. :) So you are actually arguing -against- your first point. That said, no one has yet said why it is necessary, or even desirable, to have a completely homogenous view of the world. Perhaps time to ask Brad, Paul and Cricket what they think, and have answers to their comments. Perhaps. However, in the last DNS related thread, Paul made a pretty strong claim (violating a protocol) and showed exactly _ZERO_ facts to back it up, despite being asked at least five times (by my count). With automated responses to "bad things", it is usually best to minimise the scope of the change. Similarly typo correction makes sense for URLs, but not for most other uses of the DNS (hence the proviso you make to switch it off if you use RBL, although I'd say switch it off for all email servers less you start correcting spambot crud, our email servers make a DNS check on the senders domain, that doesn't want correcting either), so the answer is probably browser plug-in (although most browsers already try to guess what you meant to some extent). Perhaps something as simple as a preference only 'correcting' queries that begin with "www"? -- TTFN, patrick
Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...
On Wednesday 12 Jul 2006 18:35, David Ulevitch wrote: > On Jul 12, 2006, at 12:30 AM, Simon Waters wrote: > > On Tuesday 11 Jul 2006 20:22, Daniel Golding wrote: > >> I'm at a loss to explain why people are > >> trying so hard to condemn something like this. > > > > Experience? > > People have never created a platform to manage recursive DNS That somewhat depends on what you mean by "platform". If by "platform" you mean a remote managed service for recursive DNS, no one I know in the DNS business ever tried to sell that (although arguably the ISPs generally supply something similar free to every customer), that doesn't necessarily negate their experience. Most of those I know try to deploy recursive services as close as possible to the client, avoiding where possible alternative views of the DNS, and forwarding. Perhaps time to ask Brad, Paul and Cricket what they think, and have answers to their comments. I commend your enterprise, but have you considered trying to sell the "data feed" via firewall channels, where the restrictions could be applied more specifically than via a different view of the DNS. With automated responses to "bad things", it is usually best to minimise the scope of the change. Similarly typo correction makes sense for URLs, but not for most other uses of the DNS (hence the proviso you make to switch it off if you use RBL, although I'd say switch it off for all email servers less you start correcting spambot crud, our email servers make a DNS check on the senders domain, that doesn't want correcting either), so the answer is probably browser plug-in (although most browsers already try to guess what you meant to some extent).
