I wonder how eager they would be to implement wildcards if restricted
from making any revenue from the service the wildcard points to (ie.
sitefinder).
If Verisign establishes that it is a legitimate business practice
to redirect traffic for misspelled domain names, then the question
is, who
Recognizing that I am not an 'expert', I have got to ask just one
question. Can these people at Verisign really think that they know
better than all of the real experts that have worked with/on the DNS
over the years. It seems rather silly to assume that a few people have
more knowledge than
What effective action can we take as a collective group to
get the point across that we will not tollerate this type of behavior?
Internet death penalty? (at last a topic you can configure
your router for)
Having been provided a mechanism to catch all those typos what ISP
wouldn't want that
They claim to be representing the USER community and to know better than
we what they end users want. They think we're just a bunch of geek
engineers
that are unwilling to embrace new ideas. Most of all, they think they can
make money this way, and, they don't really care about anything else.
Yes, I will heartily agree with this. Having this functionality be
triggered by a wildcard in the DNS records is the wrong approach. It's
the application that should be taking care of this
if (NXDOMAIN)
redirect(preferences-sitefinder_host, url);
If verisigin wants to partner with someone to
I've been thinking that there should be a new type of
record introduced to be application specific for HTTP, just as
MX only applies to smtp.
Due to a wide variety of applications relying upon A
records as their method, or method of last resort (eg: if no MX,
go directly to the
Owen DeLong wrote:
They claim to be representing the USER community and to know better
than we what they end users want. They think we're just a bunch of
geek engineers that are unwilling to embrace new ideas. Most of all,
they think they can make money this way, and, they don't really care
On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 02:08:41PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
I've been thinking that there should be a new type of
record introduced to be application specific for HTTP, just as
MX only applies to smtp.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is basically what SRV records
(rfc2782) are intended
I have a good one, when was the last tiema telco asked any of us, or
anyone for that matter, how to handle an NPA-NXX assignment? or LERG?
NEVER. We're not qualified to make decisions like that because we don't
know what the effects could or would be. Likewise VeriSign obviously
doesn't,
--On Thursday, October 16, 2003 12:57 -0600 Michael Loftis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a good one, when was the last tiema telco asked any of us, or
anyone for that matter, how to handle an NPA-NXX assignment? or LERG?
This isn't necessarily a great analogy for this situation. It is
I for one am going to dumping all traffic bound to SiteFinder.
One (operational) suggestion.
Kindly return an icmp [net|host|port] unreachable, not just a route to
/dev/null.
Just a thought about the (waste of) client retrys and timeouts.
Thank you,
-bryan bradsby
==
The
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Owen DeLong wrote:
--On Thursday, October 16, 2003 12:57 -0600 Michael Loftis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a good one, when was the last tiema telco asked any of us, or
anyone for that matter, how to handle an NPA-NXX assignment? or LERG?
This isn't
At 4:07 PM +0100 10/16/03, Ray Bellis wrote:
Quoting Rusty Lewis from
http://verisign.com/corporate/news/2003/pr_20031007b.html?sl=070804
We will continue to take feedback from both Internet users and the
technical community on how we can ensure that the service is available
for the many Internet
My bad I should've been more specific, that is indeed what I will
personally be doing on any networks that I can, which should be basically
everything.
I'm also considering the other alternative suggested by some, which is to
push traffic to a host of my own.
I will have to do something about
Verisign is trying to move this argument into a question of what best
serves the end-user.
This doesn't matter, their point should be moot. Verisign is charged with
managing the .com and .net domains for the public. They DO NOT OWN those
domains so they are not allowed to use them for their own
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote:
Verisign is trying to move this argument into a question of what best
serves the end-user. They are doing this because the public
understands that, and because they know they can't win the question
of what best serves the infrastructure providers.
KH Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:23:41 -0400
KH From: Kee Hinckley
KH Verisign is trying to move this argument into a question of what best
KH serves the end-user. They are doing this because the public
KH understands that, and because they know they can't win the question
KH of what best serves
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:
Yes, I will heartily agree with this. Having this functionality be
triggered by a wildcard in the DNS records is the wrong approach. It's
the application that should be taking care of this
if (NXDOMAIN)
redirect(preferences-sitefinder_host,
At 09:27 PM 10/16/2003, you wrote:
I agree that an application level solution at the edge is the best.
I like the idea of having a user configurable parameter in the client
browser to allow the ``finder'' URL to be set. The browser
``manufacturer'' would of course put their own default and the
19 matches
Mail list logo
