Re: VeriSign Capitulates

[Sean Donelan]

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Tim Wilde wrote:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40241-2003Oct3.html
>
> And they act like they're the victims.  Amazing.

Yep, I told you so :-)  I said that before this was over, Verisign would
claim they were the victims and a bunch of hooligans on the West Coast
"attacked" their honest and decent plans to help Internet users.


> "Without so much as a hearing, ICANN today formally asked us to shut down
> the Site Finder service," said VeriSign spokesman Tom Galvin. "We will
> accede to their request while we explore all of our options."

Uhm, was that the same hearing Verisign didn't have prior to instigating
their actions?

Re: VeriSign Capitulates

[Nathan J. Mehl]

In the immortal words of Tim Wilde ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> 
> And they act like they're the victims.  Amazing.
> 
> "Without so much as a hearing, ICANN today formally asked us to shut down
> the Site Finder service," said VeriSign spokesman Tom Galvin. "We will
> accede to their request while we explore all of our options."

What's that bit about the definiton of `chutzpah?'  The parricide who
throws himself on the court's mercy as an orphan?

Oddly enough, ICANN gave them exactly as much of a hearing as they
gave ICANN, the IETF and pretty much everyone else in the world before
they foisted this abomination on us.  My heart bleeds for them,
really.

-n

--<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Kids today only have to click a few buttons to get their porn, not go
out there and shoplift porn like I did, and my father did before me,
and his father before him."   (--Dan Savage)
--

Re: VeriSign Capitulates

[Scott Weeks]

: "Without so much as a hearing, ICANN today formally asked us to shut down
: the Site Finder service," said VeriSign spokesman Tom Galvin. "We will
: accede to their request while we explore all of our options."
:
: How about a public outcry?  Did you miss that part?  You don't deserve a
: hearing.


The public are just critics:
   "Critics say that VeriSign abused its monopoly power over the
registries"


And we're a "close-knit group" who're spouting overblown claims.  Yeah,
right...  ;-)

   VeriSign also angered the close-knit group of engineers and scientists
   who are familiar with the technology underpinning the Internet. They
   say that Site Finder undermines the worldwide Domain Name System,
   causing e-mail systems, spam-blocking technology and other applications
   to malfunction.

   VeriSign said the claims are overblown.

   "There is no data to indicate the core operation of the domain name
   system or the stability of the Internet has been adversely affected,"
   VeriSign's Galvin said.


watta bunch of goobers!

scott



On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Tim Wilde wrote:

:
: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40241-2003Oct3.html
:
: And they act like they're the victims.  Amazing.
:
: "Without so much as a hearing, ICANN today formally asked us to shut down
: the Site Finder service," said VeriSign spokesman Tom Galvin. "We will
: accede to their request while we explore all of our options."
:
: How about a public outcry?  Did you miss that part?  You don't deserve a
: hearing.
:
: Of course, they haven't removed the wildcard yet:
:
: dig is-it-gone-yet.com. @a.gtld-servers.net. +short
: 64.94.110.11
:
: --
: Tim Wilde
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Systems Administrator
: Dynamic DNS Network Services
: http://www.dyndns.org/
:

Re: VeriSign Capitulates

[George Bakos]

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 09:59:49 -1000 (HST)
Scott Weeks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>VeriSign also angered the close-knit group of engineers and scientists
>who are familiar with the technology underpinning the Internet. They
>say that Site Finder undermines the worldwide Domain Name System,
>causing e-mail systems, spam-blocking technology and other applications
>to malfunction.
> 
>VeriSign said the claims are overblown.
> 
>"There is no data to indicate the core operation of the domain name
>system or the stability of the Internet has been adversely affected,"
>VeriSign's Galvin said.
> 
> 
> watta bunch of goobers!

Would those goobers be Versign, or the "close-knit group of engineers and
scientists"?

g

> scott
> 

Re: VeriSign Capitulates

[Jared Mauch]

I wonder if they will still present at Nanog?

http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0310/dns.html

- Jared

On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 03:44:26PM -0400, Tim Wilde wrote:
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40241-2003Oct3.html
> 
> And they act like they're the victims.  Amazing.
> 
> "Without so much as a hearing, ICANN today formally asked us to shut down
> the Site Finder service," said VeriSign spokesman Tom Galvin. "We will
> accede to their request while we explore all of our options."
> 
> How about a public outcry?  Did you miss that part?  You don't deserve a
> hearing.
> 
> Of course, they haven't removed the wildcard yet:
> 
> dig is-it-gone-yet.com. @a.gtld-servers.net. +short
> 64.94.110.11
> 
> -- 
> Tim Wilde
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Systems Administrator
> Dynamic DNS Network Services
> http://www.dyndns.org/

-- 
Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
clue++;  | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only mine.

RE: VeriSign Capitulates

[Allen McRay]

Outside of one other person on this list, I know no one else personally, so
where do they come up with the "close-knit" stuff?  I thought that most of
the traffic I have monitored, re: this topic, has come from a very diverse
and rather large group of people from all around the world who have been
trying to say is that what VeriSign has done has caused problems in their
area of expertise, in their businesses, and for the public in general.  Also
seen a lot of proof posted along with the comments.

I might also mention, I understand the technology "underpinning" the
internet it's the attempted abuse of power by individuals and
organizations like VeriSign that I can't go along with

Allen

>VeriSign also angered the close-knit group of engineers and scientists
>who are familiar with the technology underpinning the Internet. They
>say that Site Finder undermines the worldwide Domain Name System,
>causing e-mail systems, spam-blocking technology and other applications
>to malfunction.

Re: VeriSign Capitulates

[Haesu]

> 
>VeriSign said the claims are overblown.
> 
>"There is no data to indicate the core operation of the domain name
>system or the stability of the Internet has been adversely affected,"
>VeriSign's Galvin said.


LOL.

VeriSign, woudl you like a copy of all the spams I got b/c your RevenueFinder 
(sitefinder) broke my spam filters?

-hc

-- 
Haesu C.
TowardEX Technologies, Inc.
Consulting, colocation, web hosting, network design and implementation
http://www.towardex.com | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell: (978)394-2867 | Office: (978)263-3399 Ext. 170
Fax: (978)263-0033  | POC: HAESU-ARIN

> 
> 
> watta bunch of goobers!
> 
> scott
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Tim Wilde wrote:
> 
> :
> : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40241-2003Oct3.html
> :
> : And they act like they're the victims.  Amazing.
> :
> : "Without so much as a hearing, ICANN today formally asked us to shut down
> : the Site Finder service," said VeriSign spokesman Tom Galvin. "We will
> : accede to their request while we explore all of our options."
> :
> : How about a public outcry?  Did you miss that part?  You don't deserve a
> : hearing.
> :
> : Of course, they haven't removed the wildcard yet:
> :
> : dig is-it-gone-yet.com. @a.gtld-servers.net. +short
> : 64.94.110.11
> :
> : --
> : Tim Wilde
> : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> : Systems Administrator
> : Dynamic DNS Network Services
> : http://www.dyndns.org/
> :

Re: VeriSign Capitulates

[Rafi Sadowsky]

## On 2003-10-03 15:56 -0400 Sean Donelan typed:

SD> 
SD> 
SD> > "Without so much as a hearing, ICANN today formally asked us to shut down
SD> > the Site Finder service," said VeriSign spokesman Tom Galvin. "We will
SD> > accede to their request while we explore all of our options."
SD> 
SD> Uhm, was that the same hearing Verisign didn't have prior to instigating
SD> their actions?

 Why should they need a hearing ? 

 IMHO the ICANN demand is only to remove the wildcard DNS pointers to the
"Site Finder" service and they're completely free to point say "*.verisign.com" 
to their "Site Finder" (Which they're free to leave running as long as
they want ;-)
 
-- 
Regards, 
Rafi

Re: VeriSign Capitulates

[Kevin Loch]

"... in an attempt to assert a dubious right to regulate non-registry 
services."

This explains everything.  They don't believe the stability of
com and net are in any way related to their registry duties.
That quote alone should be sufficient to deny them custody of
com and net.

Re: VeriSign Capitulates

[Wayne E. Bouchard]

It may not be a hearing but they can still appeal.

   If, during this period, further technical and operational evaluations
   of the changes made by VeriSign on 15 September indicate that those
   measures can be reinstated, or reinstated with modifications, without
   adverse effects, I will initiate the process to modify the .com and
   .net agreements to allow those changes to take place. We will use best
   efforts to complete these evaluations in a timely manner.

   If, on the other hand, these ongoing evaluations confirm the claimed
   adverse effects on the Internet, the DNS or the .com and .net domains
   that have been publicized to date, or raise new concerns of that type,
   those concerns will have to be resolved prior to any reintroduction of
   these changes. If any such concerns cannot be resolved, and VeriSign
   continues to seek to implement the service, it will be necessary to
   make recourse to the dispute resolution provisions of the two
   agreements. 

This doesn't say it WILL reappear, only that it MAY. Then again, there
aren't a whole lot of modifications that can be made to
"* IN A 64.94.110.11" so we'll see..

On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 10:57:04PM +0200, Rafi Sadowsky wrote:
> 
> 
> ## On 2003-10-03 15:56 -0400 Sean Donelan typed:
> 
> SD> 
> SD> 
> SD> > "Without so much as a hearing, ICANN today formally asked us to shut down
> SD> > the Site Finder service," said VeriSign spokesman Tom Galvin. "We will
> SD> > accede to their request while we explore all of our options."
> SD> 
> SD> Uhm, was that the same hearing Verisign didn't have prior to instigating
> SD> their actions?
> 
>  Why should they need a hearing ? 
> 
>  IMHO the ICANN demand is only to remove the wildcard DNS pointers to the
> "Site Finder" service and they're completely free to point say "*.verisign.com" 
> to their "Site Finder" (Which they're free to leave running as long as
> they want ;-)
>  
> -- 
> Regards, 
>   Rafi

---
Wayne Bouchard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Network Dude
http://www.typo.org/~web/


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: VeriSign Capitulates

[Wayne E. Bouchard]

It also imtimates that they do not believe that ICANN has any right
under current legislation to monitor what actually goes into the zone
file; only the way verisign behaves as a registry. The fact of the
matter is that yes, there is a seperation between those two items but
ICANN most deffinitely has a say in how the technical aspects can be
managed. Also, once verisign made a change to the root file for it's
own commercial benefit, they themselves crossed the line between
registry and maintainer.

On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 05:03:50PM -0400, Kevin Loch wrote:
> 
> "... in an attempt to assert a dubious right to regulate non-registry 
> services."
> 
> This explains everything.  They don't believe the stability of
> com and net are in any way related to their registry duties.
> 
> That quote alone should be sufficient to deny them custody of
> com and net.

---
Wayne Bouchard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Network Dude
http://www.typo.org/~web/


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

RE: VeriSign Capitulates

[Owen DeLong]

Verisign press releases have never been about the facts.  Instead it's
about trying to manipulate public perception to their side.  Verisign has
never expressed any actual concern or even care about how much damage
their actions do to the internet.  Any expectation that this would change
in this circumstance is an act of optimism or stupidity.
I only hope that the press in question will be made aware of the truth
of these matters and publish that information.  Otherwise, you may be
faced with a situation where the DOC asks ICANN why they caved to such
a small special interest group's pressure.
Owen

--On Friday, October 3, 2003 15:43 -0500 Allen McRay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

Outside of one other person on this list, I know no one else personally,
so where do they come up with the "close-knit" stuff?  I thought that
most of the traffic I have monitored, re: this topic, has come from a
very diverse and rather large group of people from all around the world
who have been trying to say is that what VeriSign has done has caused
problems in their area of expertise, in their businesses, and for the
public in general.  Also seen a lot of proof posted along with the
comments.
I might also mention, I understand the technology "underpinning" the
internet it's the attempted abuse of power by individuals and
organizations like VeriSign that I can't go along with
Allen

   VeriSign also angered the close-knit group of engineers and scientists
   who are familiar with the technology underpinning the Internet. They
   say that Site Finder undermines the worldwide Domain Name System,
   causing e-mail systems, spam-blocking technology and other
   applications to malfunction.

Re: VeriSign Capitulates

[E.B. Dreger]

JM> Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 16:16:29 -0400
JM> From: Jared Mauch


JM> I wonder if they will still present at Nanog?
JM>
JM> http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0310/dns.html

Perhaps they could give away limited-edition Snubby Mail Rejector
t-shirts; bonus points if the shirts include expect script or is
bugged.  I just may attend NANOG after all...


Eddy
--
Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building
Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national
Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita
_
  DO NOT send mail to the following addresses :
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] -or- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -or- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked.

RE: VeriSign Capitulates

[St. Clair, James]

 I would add that what you perceive as a "diverse group" is still a
realtively small sub-set of all the internet operations.

As Owen points out, the unstated message is a group of "geeks behind the
scene" (my words) ended something the great Verisign was doing for the
benefit of all netizens. Shame on you.. :-)

-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong
To: Allen McRay; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 10/3/2003 5:47 PM
Subject: RE: VeriSign Capitulates


Verisign press releases have never been about the facts.  Instead it's
about trying to manipulate public perception to their side.  Verisign
has
never expressed any actual concern or even care about how much damage
their actions do to the internet.  Any expectation that this would
change
in this circumstance is an act of optimism or stupidity.

I only hope that the press in question will be made aware of the truth
of these matters and publish that information.  Otherwise, you may be
faced with a situation where the DOC asks ICANN why they caved to such
a small special interest group's pressure.

Owen


--On Friday, October 3, 2003 15:43 -0500 Allen McRay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

wrote:

>
> Outside of one other person on this list, I know no one else
personally,
> so where do they come up with the "close-knit" stuff?  I thought that
> most of the traffic I have monitored, re: this topic, has come from a
> very diverse and rather large group of people from all around the
world
> who have been trying to say is that what VeriSign has done has caused
> problems in their area of expertise, in their businesses, and for the
> public in general.  Also seen a lot of proof posted along with the
> comments.
>
> I might also mention, I understand the technology "underpinning" the
> internet it's the attempted abuse of power by individuals and
> organizations like VeriSign that I can't go along with
>
> Allen
>
>>VeriSign also angered the close-knit group of engineers and
scientists
>>who are familiar with the technology underpinning the Internet.
They
>>say that Site Finder undermines the worldwide Domain Name System,
>>causing e-mail systems, spam-blocking technology and other
>>applications to malfunction.
>
>
>

RE: VeriSign Capitulates

[JC Dill]

At 07:17 AM 10/4/2003, St. Clair, James wrote:
 I would add that what you perceive as a "diverse group" is still a
realtively small sub-set of all the internet operations.
Be that as it may, this group is *anything* but "close knit".  This is as 
unified as I've seen nanog participants on any matter (technical or 
otherwise) over the years that I've been on nanog.  That alone speaks 
volumes about the "technical community's general opinion" of Verisign's 
actions in this matter.

jc

Re: VeriSign Capitulates

[Will Yardley]

On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 05:53:04PM -0700, JC Dill wrote:
> At 07:17 AM 10/4/2003, St. Clair, James wrote:

> > I would add that what you perceive as a "diverse group" is still a
> >realtively small sub-set of all the internet operations.
> 
> Be that as it may, this group is *anything* but "close knit".  This is as 
> unified as I've seen nanog participants on any matter (technical or 
> otherwise) over the years that I've been on nanog.  That alone speaks 
> volumes about the "technical community's general opinion" of Verisign's 
> actions in this matter.

And to be honest, most / all of the non-technical people I've talked to
find the "service" annoying and confusing as well. While "we" may
understand the reasons it's bad on a deeper level, have a better
understanding of what a horrible, unethical company Verisign is in the
first place,and take the issue more personally, I haven't seen any
evidence that the "average person on the street" appreciates the
altruistic service that Verislime is providing out of the goodness of
its heart.

The only people that reeally benefit from Sitefinder in any way are
Verisign and its stockholders.

I hate Sitefinder even more than I did before after an unfortunate
domain expiration mishap the other day - Sitefinder changed something
that would have been an embarassing inconvenience into a much more
unpleasant and damaging situation (with mail that probably would have
been temporarily deferred getting rejected outright, customers confused
why our site was all of the sudden pointing to Verisign).

-- 
"Since when is skepticism un-American?
Dissent's not treason but they talk like it's the same..."
(Sleater-Kinney - "Combat Rock")

Re: VeriSign Capitulates

[Michael . Dillon]

>   "There is no data to indicate the core operation of the domain name
>   system or the stability of the Internet has been adversely affected,"
>   VeriSign's Galvin said.

This means that there are no papers published or
conference presentations which detail the problems
caused by sitefinder. A number of people who
posted messages to this list could rectify that
lack of data by writing up their findings in a short
paper and presenting it at a conference or publishing
it in a magazine or journal.

I don't think the fight is over yet.

--Michael Dillon

Re: VeriSign Capitulates

[Daniel Karrenberg]

On 06.10 10:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> >   "There is no data to indicate the core operation of the domain name
> >   system or the stability of the Internet has been adversely affected,"
> >   VeriSign's Galvin said.
> 
> This means that there are no papers published or
> conference presentations which detail the problems
> caused by sitefinder. 

http://www.iab.org/documents/docs/2003-09-20-dns-wildcards.html

Re: VeriSign Capitulates

[Owen DeLong]

Quite the opposite.  It is a very carefully chosen set of words
indicating that:
1.  DNS didn't stop functioning.
2.  The internet did not fail to route packets because of this.
It carefully side-steps the other issues raised without looking like it
is ignoring them.  Verisign is a lousy DNS provider and an even worse
registry/registrar, but, they have great press writers.
Owen

--On Monday, October 6, 2003 10:54 AM +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:


  "There is no data to indicate the core operation of the domain name
  system or the stability of the Internet has been adversely affected,"
  VeriSign's Galvin said.
This means that there are no papers published or
conference presentations which detail the problems
caused by sitefinder. A number of people who
posted messages to this list could rectify that
lack of data by writing up their findings in a short
paper and presenting it at a conference or publishing
it in a magazine or journal.
I don't think the fight is over yet.

--Michael Dillon

Does anyone think it was a good thing ? (was Re: VeriSign Capitulates

[Mike Tancsa]

OK, so was ANYONE on NANOG happy with
a) Verisign's site finder
b) How they launched it
Speak up on or off list.

---Mike

At 04:14 PM 03/10/2003, George Bakos wrote:

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 09:59:49 -1000 (HST)
Scott Weeks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>VeriSign also angered the close-knit group of engineers and scientists
>who are familiar with the technology underpinning the Internet. They
>say that Site Finder undermines the worldwide Domain Name System,
>causing e-mail systems, spam-blocking technology and other applications
>to malfunction.
>
>VeriSign said the claims are overblown.
>
>"There is no data to indicate the core operation of the domain name
>system or the stability of the Internet has been adversely affected,"
>VeriSign's Galvin said.
>
>
> watta bunch of goobers!
Would those goobers be Versign, or the "close-knit group of engineers and
scientists"?
g

> scott
>

Re: Does anyone think it was a good thing ? (was Re: VeriSign Capitulates

[Haesu]

On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 04:23:29PM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> 
> 
> OK, so was ANYONE on NANOG happy with
> a) Verisign's site finder

Unfair competition, more confusions, broke a lot of stuff, etc, etc , beneficial to 
nobody


> b) How they launched it

Here... let's change the way DNS works.. That's right, overnight.

-hc

-- 
Haesu C.
TowardEX Technologies, Inc.
Consulting, colocation, web hosting, network design and implementation
http://www.towardex.com | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell: (978)394-2867 | Office: (978)263-3399 Ext. 170
Fax: (978)263-0033  | POC: HAESU-ARIN

> 
> Speak up on or off list.
> 
> ---Mike
> 
> At 04:14 PM 03/10/2003, George Bakos wrote:
> 
> >On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 09:59:49 -1000 (HST)
> >Scott Weeks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>VeriSign also angered the close-knit group of engineers and scientists
> >>who are familiar with the technology underpinning the Internet. They
> >>say that Site Finder undermines the worldwide Domain Name System,
> >>causing e-mail systems, spam-blocking technology and other 
> >applications
> >>to malfunction.
> >>
> >>VeriSign said the claims are overblown.
> >>
> >>"There is no data to indicate the core operation of the domain name
> >>system or the stability of the Internet has been adversely affected,"
> >>VeriSign's Galvin said.
> >>
> >>
> >> watta bunch of goobers!
> >
> >Would those goobers be Versign, or the "close-knit group of engineers and
> >scientists"?
> >
> >g
> >
> >> scott
> >>

Re: Does anyone think it was a good thing ? (was Re: VeriSign Capitulates

[jeffrey.arnold]

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Mike Tancsa wrote:

:: OK, so was ANYONE on NANOG happy with
:: a) Verisign's site finder
:: b) How they launched it
:: 

Disregarding their "implementation issues", the product is pretty good. 
I've actually used it to fix a few typos, etc... From an end user 
perspective, it's certainly better than a squid error page.

-jba

Re: Does anyone think it was a good thing ? (was Re: VeriSign Capitulates

[Petri Helenius]

jeffrey.arnold wrote:

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Mike Tancsa wrote:

:: OK, so was ANYONE on NANOG happy with
:: a) Verisign's site finder
:: b) How they launched it
:: 

Disregarding their "implementation issues", the product is pretty good. 
I've actually used it to fix a few typos, etc... From an end user 
perspective, it's certainly better than a squid error page.

 

But you could do that before the wildcard record and can do that after 
the wildcard record
and verisign should be happy to do that for you.

Pete

Re: Does anyone think it was a good thing ? (was Re: VeriSign Capitulates

[David G. Andersen]

On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 05:34:05PM -0400, jeffrey.arnold quacked:
> 
> On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> 
> :: OK, so was ANYONE on NANOG happy with
> :: a) Verisign's site finder
> :: b) How they launched it
> :: 
> 
> Disregarding their "implementation issues", the product is pretty good. 
> I've actually used it to fix a few typos, etc... From an end user 
> perspective, it's certainly better than a squid error page.

  Yeah, but this is easy for you to provide as a service to users
who want it.
patch your squids with the following change to src/errorpage.c:

@@ -414,6 +414,7 @@
  * T - UTC  x
  * U - URL without password x
  * u - URL with passwordx
+ * V - URL without http method without password x
  * w - cachemgr email address   x
  * z - dns server error message x
  */
@@ -546,6 +547,9 @@
 case 'u':
p = r ? urlCanonical(r) : err->url ? err->url : "[no URL]";
break;
+case 'V':
+   p = r ? urlCanonicalStripped(r) : err->url ? err->url : "[no URL]";
+break;
 case 'w':
if (Config.adminEmail)
memBufPrintf(&mb, "%s", Config.adminEmail);


And then modify errors/English/ERR_DNS_FAIL to say:

Alternatives
You can try to view this server through:

 http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:%V";>Google's Cache
 http://web.archive.org/web/*/%U";>The Internet Archive
 http://sitefinder.verisign.com/lpc?url=%V";>Use Sitefinder to search for 
typos for this domain


If you're creative, have it send them with a redirect to a local
CGI script that tries obvious typos.  Very simple.  My users like
the link to the internet archive (also modify the "could not connect"
error page and others).  If you just want HTML, create a framed document
that auto-loads the sitefinder doc in the bottom half, and pops up
your own error page in the front.  I leave that as an exercise to
the HTML-clued reader, but it's not very hard.

  -Dave

-- 
work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  me:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  MIT Laboratory for Computer Science   http://www.angio.net/
  I do not accept unsolicited commercial email.  Do not spam me.