As a developer I see that setting limits at first is a
good idea...
For what it's worth --
I to feel that programming limits is generally a bad thing
to do. Transitioning a database from an obsolete format to
an updated format can be a real nightmare.
That said DNS technology for the average u
and so on to 10,000.
When a DNS request comes in to resolve www.domain.com,
the fact that there are 10,000 "A" records in the zone
has absolutely no bearing on the size of the response
back.
You should only get the domain or subdomain you asked for,
plus the full list of DNS authorities for tha
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 23:07:50 -0600
Dave Warren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Beyond 512 bytes, you just can't use UDP -- You can have
larger records using TCP.
It's allways nice when a web site takes 5 to 10 seconds to
resolve. :)
More importantly though, we're not just talking number of
IPs pe
If I understand your question ---
Per the RFC's DNS responses are limited to 512 bytes, and
DNS queries and response use a very efficient mechanism to
"compress" (actually reuse) previously specified
subdomains (with respect to ROOT) labels.
Bottom line: There is no way to fit 1000 resource rec
I'd also add this depends on the TLD. Domains of thick
registries can and do go into Pending Transfer state
before Tucows knows about it -- I'm refering to transfers
*AWAY* from Tucows. However Tucows seems to get caught up
with this in 24 to 48 hours.
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 11:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
There are no nexus requirements for .INFO, it's a straight
gTLD. :)
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 17:16:37 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello:
I am working on a nice backend system for my
clients. It
will allow them to make global or multiple domain changes
to their
domain names. What
That might explain problems I have had in the past however
I'm not in a position to sanity check that as things are
now working. If the problem returns I will try this
suggestion and see if there is a clear corelation.
Thanks!
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 19:59:30 +0200
"Fagyal, Csongor" <[EMAIL PROTEC
If I could get what amounts to a database dump of all
the info related to
all domain names in my account, all of these problems
would go away; I
could use that to do just about anything I needed.
I too would like to see this in addtion to being able to
write the record / structure back to Tuco
Auth codes are one of the most useful aspects of the new
TLD registries and it, in addition to domain locks, is an
awesome way to prevent domain theft.
The problem is that many registrars did not like being
forced to implement Auth Codes and as a result have
severaly *GUTTED* the effectiveness
Shamless plug: http://www.DomainWatchDog.info
This app is *FREE* when used to manage 5 domains or less.
This is a utility I wrote for myself and am now
distributing due to friends finding it so useful. The
integrated BetterWhois(TM) tool supports *EVERY* TLD I
could find the servers for as wel
Ross,
I honestly believe you will reward us all with a very
satisfactory solution to the issues being expressed.
I also wish to appologize for anything I have said that
might suggest I believe otherwise. Fact is I have
experianced more than my far share of offensive off list
flames and my com
My read is that HTTPS is handled via trivial (took me 15
to 30 minutes to hack and successfuly "script" the OpenSRS
RWI and code runs on Win 98+) Windows OS calls and HTTPS
is also handled in a similarly transparent manor on other
platforms as well. So, while the client is still burdened,
long
Agreed, but the context of my comment was regarding all
the free Blowfish code developers will find on the
internet. In other words most free source makes the 2 seem
to be one.
And then on the other hand you will find code that is flat
Blowfish. So your comment and mine hopefully properly
no
Whoop'see! I just got a nice Tucows white paper in my
inbox! Thanks Tucows!
Even has some limited "test data".
Ok, I'm now forced to keep my mouth shut on the issue
until I have time to go though this doc in detail.
Thanks again!
From what I've read I think you are kinda sorta right.
The problem is that when you lookup Blowfish you will find
many "flavors" of it and one is CBC -- And that is just
the beginning ... :(
Also the key "cooking" also throws yet another monkey
wrench into things but then this goes well outsid
I feel the same way. :(
The really said part is that Blowfish was released as an
open standard and so it's trivial to get your hands on
source for virtually any language / platform. Tucows
really needs to write up and provide a nice clean white
paper on their unique Blowfish "tweaks" as well a
Note: ClosedSRS requires Window Security support which is
only available on NT+ (?) and W2K+. So you can't use it on
Win98, etc.
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 11:04:57 -0800
"Lynn W. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Go to sourceforge.net, look for "ClosedSRS"
-- Lynn
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:15:36 -080
I've also learned that when you are the lead on a
project, you get to define all of the interfaces, and
when you aren't, you get to use the interfaces you are
given (or, if you prefer, the interfaces that are
dictated to you).
You can bitch about it, or you can learn the things you
need to do
Last I knew Tucows was not only listening but had
solicited for members input and gave the discussion it's
own area on "the farm".
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:08:51 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, I can't resist saying XML WEB SERVICES at the drop
of a hat. It
doesn't seem to do any good, t
Problems do exists and some are very frustrating!
To date I've used about 3 dozen (perhaps more) registrars.
The problems that exists at Tucows are *NOTHING* compared
to other registrars. I think Tocows is doing an
outstanding job compared to any other registrar out their.
And yes, the work wi
Been there many times but using the RWI. :(
The system is excessively picky about the names sever
specification. I have forgotton all the problems / bugs --
I now just copy a previous (successful) registration so I
can avoid the problem..
If memory serves; The problem typically goes away if yo
Anyone out there testing the HTTPS POST interface?
I had no idea such a thing existed and I did not see it
listed in the API docs area just now.
Could you please provide a URL for it's API? Thanks!
Unfortunately this ActiveX control appears to use the OS
security services that *ARE NOT* available on Windows 98.
Perhaps the author would be kind enough to note on the web
site exactly which Windows OS versions the control will
run on (I'm guessing W2K and XP only).
Thanks!
We have one clea
Code reuse occurs in many ways. In the case of Blowfish I
did already state that if you spend a few minutes you can
find Blowfish source code on the internet in just about
any language you want -- Again, that was the very
intention of the author of Blowfish. Thus when someone
refers to "gettin
With all do respect, were talking *SYSTEMS INTEGRATION*
here, and I've received a wealth of comments that clearly
state this is the problem.
No amount of Blowfish documentaion is ever going to help
anyone get blowfish "working" if some obscure proprietary
hash is done on the provided key and t
This is why I have *BEGGED* in the past for some test
vectors for each and every step of the encryption process.
Since there are so many steps / layers only a set of test
vectors will allow simple and quick debugging isolation of
ones code. And fact is such test vectors should only take
a few
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 17:51:50 +0200
"Uros" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well yes, I agree. I would like to write my own code, so
I don't have to drag extra DLLs with my program.
Agreed!
Espicially when the basic encryption algorithms are so
standard that it's pretty easy to download code for them
Thank you Eric!
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:12:48 -0400
"WebWiz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Or, better still...
I've posted it at
http://www.atlcon.net/downloads/opensrs/
Regards,
Eric Longman
Atl-Connect Internet Services
- Original Message -
From: "Uros" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL P
I've actually received this error using the online live
registration system. This seemed to have been caused by my
not having included name servers in my registration (I
believe it was for a .INFO reg). When I included name
servers this error went away and I then just logged into
the manage in
--- The Forwarded Message Follows ---
--- Begin Message ---
I use www.UltraDns.com. Set your TTL very high to limit
your usage charges.
UltraDns is a world-wide DNS system originally created for
Registry services and has guarenteed 100% uptime.
I have had *NO* problems with UltraDns. When I
I'm very pleased others are joining me in pursuit of
"native" MicroSoft Windows API support.
Perhaps now the Linux / Perl extremists will stop flaming
me via my personal email address .
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:18:42 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm in favor of Tucows using their energy to
Thanks for the link!
My "beef" is with Tucows in that such descrenancies are
not documented. Again, effectively, Tucows only supports
a single configuration in a specific environment.
Why does enom provide such a "lite" and simple API?
Answer: API is OS and Language Agnostic / enom is trying
Language = Clarion 5.5EE, platform is Win98 and Win2000
Server.
My Blowfish code passes all the test vectors provided by
the original creator of Blowfish, located here,
http://www.counterpane.com/blowfish.html
But as I stated, it was through the help of others who
have successfully authored t
Fortunately many poeple came to my assistance in trying to
write my own interface . Then I was told that even
though my Blowfish algorithm satifies all the test vectors
it will not work for API since the Perl implementation
they use is slightly different than "the standard" ..
I gave u
I'm currently,
1) Writing my own code to interface with OpenSRS.
2) Am performing all SW tests on the OpenSRS test server
since I've not yet performed the OpenSRS automation test
qualification.
The initial Server / Client dialog seems to go fine and I
follow it with the authentication message
IMHO,
1) NetSol growing loss of domain reg market share proves
they *ARE NOT* getting away with it .
2) Whining about the situation to each other is just
"misery loves company" --- Whining about it to ICANN via
their complaint form (or posting something on your web
site as I suggested ea
Bill,
You are correct.
That was the start of the game they played with me. But
the NSI people I spoke to in the Phillipines (!) said they
would forward my question on the their supervisors (sic)
And of course nobody ever called me back ...
This, and my detailed notes of all calls, was v
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 14:18:51 -0800
Robert L Mathews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 1/22/03 1:50 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You gonna tell your customers to retype thier entire
registration record after the transfer goes through? ;-)
Ummm, I think you're misunderstanding how transfers work.
Yes.
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:51:03 -0700
"Dave Warren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Dave Warren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Do you honestly see Verisign Registry hammering anybody
else either?
*CONTACT AFILIAS*!
http://www.Afilias.info
Or even call them on the phone,. Their people are awesome,
empowered, and extremely helpful!
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 14:12:51 -0800
Robert L Mathews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 1/22/03 1:38 PM, Charles Daminato wrote:
Well, at least the registrar ha
ICANN does have a complaint form on their web site. If
enough people complain then, perhaps something will get
done.
But I think the most effective action might be for
everyone to post messages on there web sites, perhaps your
home page, about the "current difficulties involved with
transfer
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:21:58 -0700
"Dave Warren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Do you honestly see Verisign Registry hammering Verisign
Registrar for
anything?
No.
But your statement suggests to me that you are aware that
Verisign only has 30% of the current CNO (and O is gone)
registrations un
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 23:31:33 +0200
Doytchin Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Then NetworkSolutions should be banned? Do you think this
could happen
some day? :)
Yes, this is high on my domain industry wish list! LOL!
*NOT TRUE*
I had a number of registrars attempt to play that game!
One call to Afilias was all it took for Afilias to remind
the registrar of their *CONTRACTUAL* obligations. If fact
Afilias, who I just love, really *HAMMERED* NSI when they
played this game with me . To the point that a N
Dave,
Personally I think your issue may be even easier to
address and it currently exists: domain *AUTHORIZATION
CODES*.
.Info and .Biz use it and it works just fine. I know that
NSI is a fox guarding the hen house, but with auth codes
the losing registrar has *PROOF* the owner was involved i
You gonna tell your customers to retype thier entire
registration record after the transfer goes through? ;-)
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 13:04:11 -0800
"Lynn W. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, but does it have to be parsable by WHOIS?
Earlier, I commented that Registrar "A" needed a way to
I'm *VERY* please to hear this!
Yup, Verisign does have a conflict of interest that does
not exists with Afilias and Neulevel.
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 16:38:35 -0500
"Charles Daminato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, at least the registrar has proof that someone with
access to the
AuthCode was in
The most obvious being the one stated earlier:
Getting the owners email to be able to initiate a
transfer.
Another one being just plain old standardization to make
things easier on the eyes ... This is why I love the
non-tiered whois of Afilias and Neulevel. Although
Neulevel seems to ha
Let me say this differently, IMHO:
1) Renewal stealing requires a procedural solution. Read:
You loose your ICANN status if you do not "play nice" with
the other registrars.
2) Spammers can/must be handled with a tech solution --
After all they never signed a contract. (LOL!) For example
my
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 21:18:36 +0100
Csongor Fagyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
For what it's worth I personally agree that the whois
should have an XML component.
But *NOT* until we creatively address the spammer issue.
Yes spammers will in the end get email addresses. But I
firmly believe there is more than enough intelectual
horsepower among the internet community t
Lynn,
While I dislike GoDaddy very much, your comment is exactly
why I feel GoDaddy and other registrars do have legitamate
reasons to make their whois "selectively available".
Contracts aside, I'm guessing ICANN is in a bit of a bind
on this one since both spammers *AND REGISTRARS* misuse
th
Sorry, I forgot about that!
I do recall the last domains I transfered from GoDaddy to
Tucows did get stalled and Tucows reported that the Whois
was not parsable.
I wonder how Tucows addressed / addresses the issue?
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 22:59:16 -0800
"Lynn W. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
Given how frequently some registrars rape other registrars
Whois databases for renewals I don't think there is much
chance of successfully arguing against "protecting
oneself". This is also another reason why some registrars
severely govern the rate at which you can query their
Whois.
I'm es
I've sucessfully written a Whois Parser which I maintain
to this day Thanks to all the idiot spammers who mine
Whois for email addresses I have found the following,
1) To make Whois Parsing very difficult Several registrars
dynamically change,
a) the Whois field prefixes
b) the order th
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:44:28 -0500 (EST)
Christopher Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I *NEED* to implement Tucows domain registration soley
via
a pure Windows OS implementation
Have you considered finding a Windows 2000 box to put IIS
and A
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 14:59:43 -0800 (PST)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I *NEED* to implement Tucows domain registration soley
via
a pure Windows OS implementation
This statement has been bothering me...
ActivePerl on Windows running the standard client code is
a "pure Windows
OS implementatio
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:29:47 -0500 (EST)
Christopher Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 15:16:27 -0500 (EST)
Christopher Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Colin Viebrock wrote:
>> > My point is that *TOO MUCH W
Charles-
Since the full OpenSRS API is posing such a challenge,
have you considered scripting against the batch RWI?
No. I did not want to do that since it becomes a
management headache if they make any changes. I'd rather
"follow the rules" of a commited interface layer.
Also I have more fai
I'm not being critical of TUCOWS, but of the industry as
a whole.
Support is rarely a profit center, it is almost always a
cost center.
Oh boy That kind of thinking can be the very source
of the problem.
Support is *ALLWAYS* an *INDIRECT* profit center.
Remember 50% of *ALL* sales in m
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 15:35:57 -0500
"Chris R Chapman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I just had to pick up on this exchange as I think it
illustrates a really
interesting paradigm:
You say OpenSRS doesn't support Windows? So b
Looks to me like you have the scars to prove and justify
the "consulting" part of you email address ... ;-)
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 15:35:57 -0500
"Chris R Chapman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I just had to pick up on this exchange as I think it
illustrates a really
interesting paradigm:
--
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 15:16:27 -0500 (EST)
Christopher Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Colin Viebrock wrote:
> My point is that *TOO MUCH WORK* is required to
implement
> the spec as currently documented.
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on
this. I
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 14:23:18 -0500
Colin Viebrock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Chris R Chapman wrote:
I've communicated with Charles directly and understand
what he needs-- and
his frustration.
So have I, and I'm still not sure what he needs that
isn't provided already.
I'm not either! LOL!
S
Chris,
Almost forgot,
Like you Colin has also provided me the details I
requested, so please go easy on him. ;-)
Thank you *BOTH*, and all others who have provided help
via theses post and also by direct email!
I really do appreciate it!
Charles
PS. That does not mean I've got this sucker w
LOL!
Most of my career has been with initial stage startups. So
I allways find it fun, and have a lot of experiance,
"ju-jitsu'ing" naysayers! It helps keep my brain sharp!
BRING IT ON!
ROFL!
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 13:54:22 -0500
"Chris R Chapman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've communicated
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 10:59:55 -0800 (PST)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More to the point - I'm in the Domain Name business, not
the software buisness ...<<
I hate to point out the obvious, but you say you are in
the domain name
business, not the software business. So why then are you
trying to
de
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 14:10:15 -0500
Colin Viebrock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Agreed, but I have a Tucows reseller account in order to
purchase and manage domain names. I do not have a Tocows
account because I like to "[do] a bit of work" to
implement their API spec.
My point is that *TOO MUCH
--- The Forwarded Message Follows ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 12:27:28 -0500
Colin Viebrock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
These are provided in the API spec.
If *COMPLETE* examples are really provided than why have
so many emails I've receive agreed with my position?
The
--- The Forwarded Message Follows ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 11:22:02 -0500
Colin Viebrock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And *COMPLET* mean just that!
1) Present the message being made of the server, and
provide it as a
text file
These are provided in the API spec.
If
SECURITY... ;o) Fo tyou AND 2Cows
I don't buy it.
I never said or suggested abandoning the Blowfish
encryption layer (but I do not trust DES).
--
Mike Allen, 4CheapDomains.Net
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.4CheapDomains.Net
Need Advertising? Try DeerSearch.Com
http://www.DeerSearch.co
Sorry for all the discontinuities with posting to the list
and not posting to the list. I'll try to start paying more
attention to the headers.
--- The Forwarded Message Follows ---
--- Begin Message ---
I've been using the quickstart program since I opened my
Tucows account and started cons
Let me try to put my situation into a different
perspective:
Regarding the docs, I honestly *DO NOT* agree with others
comments that the docs are bad. I'll bet the docs are
actually good *BUT* the examples are useless simply
because there is not a single *COMPLETE* example in the
entire docum
Thanks, but this doc is for NT and 2000.
I'm running Windows 98 First Edition.
And there is no way I'm tearing up my Win 2k production
servers, or referance server .
I'll live with enom until I get the info I need ... Or
someone take pitty on me. LOL!
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 15:52:07 -080
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 15:44:16 -0800
"Lynn W. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Charles,
Your earlier post said that you had an account just for
your own use. That implies very little need for
"integration" into any other application.
EXACTLY!
So why isn't there a *SIMPLE WAY* for me to cod
Yes, I too have had some difficulties with enom but they
have been mild compared to others NSI being the most
difficicult and manipulative of the dozens of registrars
I've dealt with.
When I say Tucows provides awesome support I'm talking
from the experiance of dealing with 40+ registrars
--- The Forwarded Message Follows ---
--- Begin Message ---
Ok, I'll fess up,
1) I already downloaded Active Perl
2) I installed Active Perl
3) I'm running Windows 98 FE
4) Active Perl no-workee without IIS, thus
5) OpenSRS default client no workee since Active Perl
no-workee. This of cour
--- The Forwarded Message Follows ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lynn,
Understood, but I do need to integrate the registration
functionality into a unique Windows application I have.
Thus PERL or PHP in any form is not possible, period.
I have just setup an enom reseller account to carry me
t
Thank you all for responding and suggesting that I setup
the default client and just parse the results.
I did consider this before asking anyone for help.
The problem with this is that I have no PERL, or PHP
knowledge or experiance or available resources. I also do
not have any Linux buddies I
I beleive I understand the handshaking command set, but
sample can only make my task easier while imposing on you
even more.
I beleive I have a working Blowfish Encode / Decode
function and I did see the Dev-List message which
describes the necessary Private Key "pre-hash". So I'm
hoping I n
Tucows support suggested I join this list and ask the
following:
Can anyone *PLEASE* provide me a sample new (not renew or
transfer) .INFO domain registration request packet (non
encrypted of course) which gets sent to OpenSRS server,
and it's response packet (both success and failure).
Speci
81 matches
Mail list logo
