Re: Stop Being Lazy when Quoting EMails (was Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls)

John Palmer wrote: Excuse me, but WATCH what you do when you are quoting people. I did not post the remarks that you attribute to me in the message below, in fact I cannot even find them in any message to which I replied. Point taken. As near as I can tell, Nilsson "quoted" and deleted everything

Stop Being Lazy when Quoting EMails (was Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls)

ROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 13:16 Subject: Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls > > Måns Nilsson KTHNOC wrote: > > > --On Monday, February 23, 2004 12:43:40 -0600 John Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

Måns Nilsson KTHNOC wrote: --On Monday, February 23, 2004 12:43:40 -0600 John Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: funny thing, all those wackos are always posting using From: addresses in TLDs approved by the system they detest. wonder why they aren't using their own wonderful, free domains. Becau

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

--On Monday, February 23, 2004 12:43:40 -0600 John Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null funny thing, all those wackos are always posting using From: addresses in TLDs approved by the system they detest. wonder why they aren't using their own wonderful, free domains.

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Paul Vixie wrote: > > Unlaterally forcing it upon everyone and breaking non www based apps is > > the wrong way to do it. > if you have well founded views on this topic and you have not yet shared > them with ICANN's SSAC, please do so. see . There

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

One other item is that some ISP's like us can't do the browser plug in option because of the "dial-up accelerator" products already embedded to the browser , installing paxfires technology on top of our accelerator plug in would just chew IE and its tcp stack. Also they state they only proxy

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

On Tuesday, February 24, 2004 3:09 PM [EST], Dan Hollis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Jason Nealis wrote: >> It's a module plug-in into bind and if you prefer to try and do this in a >> opt-in basis they have a client program that you download and it gets >> hooked into the us

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

> > It's a module plug-in into bind and if you prefer to try and do this > > in a opt-in basis they have a client program that you download and > > it gets hooked into the users browser. > > This is the right way to do it, end user opt in, and browser only. i'm a little bit worried about the ide

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Jason Nealis wrote: > It's a module plug-in into bind and if you prefer to try and do this in a > opt-in basis they have a client program that you download and it gets hooked > into the users browser. This is the right way to do it, end user opt in, and browser only. Unlater

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

>Okay, they are lying here. That's a bit strong. If you had looked at the Paxfire website it doesn't take long to realize they are completely clueless. They are an Internet traffic broker but the traffic that they deal in is web page views which illustrates a certain level of technical cluelessne

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Jason Nealis wrote: > FWIW, We had PAXFIRE in over here last week and heard their dog and pony > on the product, basically they make money by using your customer base and > diverting them to a search page that they developed with their "partners". Of > course they only dive

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:01:05 EST, Jason Nealis said: > They claim that the embedded MSN search page that you get diverted to by IE > is making MSN millions and millions of dollars and they want the ISP's to > get some of that revenue share. Of course, if all the ISPs do it, that will dry up MSN'

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

FWIW, We had PAXFIRE in over here last week and heard their dog and pony on the product, basically they make money by using your customer base and diverting them to a search page that they developed with their "partners". Of course they only divert them on failed www lookups. It's a module p

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 14:41:34 -0500, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote: >Yup. This is the form I saw in the PRC, It's come to Thailand too: NIPA. Results in lots of puzzling hits, or you end up at Google if NIPA can't find anything. You also get this if there is a transient DNS lo

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Stephen J. Wilcox") writes: > > ... It would be no worse than NEW.NET or any other form of DNS > > pollution/piracy (like the alternate root whackos), as long as it was > > clearly labelled. ... > > With a local redirection you get to choose that you want it, you dont > impo

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

l Vixie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 12:22 > Subject: Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randall Pigott) writes: > > > > >

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

> > I am curious what the operational impact would be to network operators > > if, instead of Verisign using SiteFinder over all com and net, Verisign > > or their technology partner for SiteFinder began coercing a large number > > of independent ISPs and network operators to install their form of

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls technologists "biased"

st sincerely, > > Randall Pigott > > At 06:11 PM 2/9/2004, you wrote: > > > From Dave Farber's IP list... > > > > --- > > > > > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25819-2004Feb9_2.html > > > >

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:43:40 CST, John Palmer said: > ICANN is a threat to freedom on the internet. There is no Very true. > technical reason why there cannot be 1,000's of TLDs > out there, except that it foils someone's monopoly > stranglehold on one of the few chokepoints of the internet.

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randall Pigott) writes: > > > I am curious what the operational impact would be to network operators > > if, instead of Verisign using SiteFinder over all com and net, Verisign > > or their technology partner for SiteFinder began coercing a large number > > of independent ISP

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

John Palmer - Original Message - From: "Paul Vixie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 12:22 Subject: Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randall Pigott) writes: >

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls technologists "biased"

Paul Vixie wrote: DNSSEC, now in its eleventh year of preproduction, is supposed to make this kind of middletweaking more detectable, but not more preventable. I suspect that Rodney's idea for doing DNS over IP tunnels is even more desireable than he thinks, for reasons he may not have yet consid

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randall Pigott) writes: > I am curious what the operational impact would be to network operators > if, instead of Verisign using SiteFinder over all com and net, Verisign > or their technology partner for SiteFinder began coercing a large number > of independent ISPs and networ

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls technologists "biased"

[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Rubens Kuhl Jr.") writes: > ... the DNS structure is a scalable way to locate IP addresses for names, > but it needs trust as people can bypass it and go directly to root servers, > gtld servers, cctld servers. The more non-standard hacks the structure get, > the more distrust

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls technologists "biased"

|Is there concern to be raised by network operators over such schemes if |deployed at the individual ISP level, particularly if such technology |becomes widespread? Yes: the DNS structure is a scalable way to locate IP addresses for names, but it needs trust as people can bypass it and go directl

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls technologists "biased"

> > > That's not the point. A failed DNS lookup actually needs to fail, not get > redirected. Perhaps you need to change your definition of failed? The lookup has not failed if the rcode in the reply is set to a non-failing value. -davidu

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls technologists "biased"

integrity of our > nationwide networks and our interconnection outwards to the rest of the > world's networks. > > Thanks most sincerely, > > Randall Pigott > > At 06:11 PM 2/9/2004, you wrote: > > > From Dave Farber's IP list... > > >

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls technologists "biased"

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 10:58:39 EST, Randall Pigott said: > Is there concern to be raised by network operators over such schemes if > deployed at the individual ISP level, particularly if such technology > becomes widespread? They're your customers. This week, anyhow. That's the big difference b

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls technologists "biased"

rks and our interconnection outwards to the rest of the > world's networks. > > Thanks most sincerely, > > Randall Pigott > > At 06:11 PM 2/9/2004, you wrote: > > > From Dave Farber's IP list... > > > > --- > > > > > >http://www.washingtonpo

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls technologists "biased"

rds to the rest of the world's networks. Thanks most sincerely, Randall Pigott At 06:11 PM 2/9/2004, you wrote: From Dave Farber's IP list... --- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25819-2004Feb9_2.html VeriSign Reconsiders Search Service "Site

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

At 04:25 PM 2/10/2004, Paul Vixie wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JC Dill) writes: > Just as Canter and Siegel's green card spam was a novel way to (ab)use > SMTP for Canter and Siegel's profit, ten years later Verisign develops > Sitefinder [1] - a novel way to (ab)use DNS requests for Verisign's > pr

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JC Dill) writes: > Just as Canter and Siegel's green card spam was a novel way to (ab)use > SMTP for Canter and Siegel's profit, ten years later Verisign develops > Sitefinder [1] - a novel way to (ab)use DNS requests for Verisign's > profit. ... while i won't fault your analo

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

On Tuesday, February 10, 2004, at 11:24 AM, Michael Loftis wrote: --On Tuesday, February 10, 2004 08:58 -0700 "Wayne E. Bouchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I still maintain that what sitefinder is trying to do is not really wrong but it's the wrong way to go about it. This is functionality

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

Paul Wouters wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, David Luyer wrote: > > > Site Finder on its own added to spam; spam volumes increased as the number > > of "sender domain does not resolve" bounces dropped away. > > That is a myth: http://www.xtdnet.nl/paul/spa

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, David Luyer wrote: > > > Site Finder on its own added to spam; spam volumes increased as the number > > of "sender domain does not resolve" bounces dropped away. > > That is a myth: http://www.xtdnet.nl/paul/spam/graphs/versign.png > &g

RE: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, David Luyer wrote: > Site Finder on its own added to spam; spam volumes increased as the number > of "sender domain does not resolve" bounces dropped away. That is a myth: http://www.xtdnet.nl/paul/spam/graphs/versign.png If you want to blame spam on a s

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

On Tuesday, February 10, 2004, at 11:24 AM, Michael Loftis wrote: --On Tuesday, February 10, 2004 08:58 -0700 "Wayne E. Bouchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I still maintain that what sitefinder is trying to do is not really wrong but it's the wrong way to go about it. This is functionality

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

--On Tuesday, February 10, 2004 08:58 -0700 "Wayne E. Bouchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I still maintain that what sitefinder is trying to do is not really wrong but it's the wrong way to go about it. This is functionality that is strictly for web users. Why should every other protocol that

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

I still maintain that what sitefinder is trying to do is not really wrong but it's the wrong way to go about it. This is functionality that is strictly for web users. Why should every other protocol that relies on domain name service be subject to this garbage? If they want to partner with someon

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

> So, how do you explain that NIC France accepts the use of linux.fr > to someone who pretends to be the author & proprietary of > the name "linux" and who IS NOT Linus Torvalds? This reminds me of the times when people on the list accused other list members of being closet spammers. At the

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

At 08:37 PM 2/9/2004, Paul Vixie wrote: the response you included... > > There's an easy way to kill sitefinder stone cold dead. > > ... > > It would be trivial to create a bot to start walking through every > > possible 20 letter domain name - and if ICANN held them to the rules, > > Verisign wo

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

On Tuesday, February 10, 2004 1:02 AM [GMT-5=EST], Scott Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > When NXDOMAIN returned, the issue disappeared and we haven't tested it > again. I can confirm this same type of issue with several clients of mine that run microsoft networking stuff, suddenly were una

RE: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

> (Yes, that's an operational issue - if they are harvesting and selling a > list of known-good From: addresses on misrouted mail, this will eventually > end up adding to spam - and that's operational) Site Finder on its own added to spam; spam volumes increased as the number

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

[I'm sure that Paul Vixie knows the difference but others may not and the Washington Post paper, mentioned at the beginning of the thread, was quite confused.] On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 04:37:09AM +, Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 22 lines which said: > why? that is, why

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

At 08:51 PM 2/9/2004, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: till such time as resolver patches in existence are modified if necessary to cope with the new edition of sitefinder. Suresh, You clearly aren't having enough fun playing Whack-A-Mole with spammers, now you get to play Whack-A-Mole with Verisi

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

: this is [EMAIL PROTECTED] if you think sitefinder poses an operational problem : then please describe it (dispassionately). if you think there is an : operational thing that ought to be done in response to sitefinder, then : please describe that (dispassionately). the response you included...

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

--On Tuesday, February 10, 2004 10:21 +0530 Suresh Ramasubramanian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <> You are of course right. The problem posed by sitefinder in its previous form has been discussed already, and our bind / djbdns resolvers have been patched appropriately to ignore the aberrant beha

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered: > > > > why? that is, why kill sitefinder? there's been plenty of invective > on both sides, and a lot of unprofessional behaviour toward verisign > employees at a recent nanog meeting, which tends to bolster verisign's > claim that

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 04:37:09 GMT, Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > this is [EMAIL PROTECTED] if you think sitefinder poses an operational problem > then please describe it (dispassionately). if you think there is an > operational thing that ought to be done in response to sitefinder, then

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

Paul Vixie wrote: why? that is, why kill sitefinder? there's been plenty of invective on both sides, and a lot of unprofessional behaviour toward verisign As I said, the measure may or may not be feasible - in fact, given that the domains are not registered, it most certainly is not feasible.

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

> This is an interesting suggestion that I saw on another list. It may > or may not be feasible, but it is certainly interesting, I must say. why? that is, why kill sitefinder? there's been plenty of invective on both sides, and a lot of unprofessional behaviour toward verisign employees at a

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls technologists "biased"

> "Gregory" == Gregory Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Gregory> From Dave Farber's IP list... Gregory> VeriSign Reconsiders Search Service This is an interesting suggestion that I saw on another list. It may or may not be feasible, but it is certainly interesting, I must say.

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls technologists "biased"

and this helps fix thed "biased technologists" image, how? > Again, the close knit community responds: [ ... ]

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls technologists "biased"

Farber's IP list... > > --- > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25819-2004Feb9_2.html > > VeriSign Reconsiders Search Service > > "Site Finder was not controversial with users, 84 percent of whom said > they liked it as a helpful

Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls technologists "biased"

>Galvin said that the continued opposition stems from "an ideological >belief by a narrow section of the technological community who don't >believe you should innovate the core infrastructure of the Internet." Again, the close knit community responds: _ INNOVATE

[IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls technologists "biased"

From Dave Farber's IP list... --- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25819-2004Feb9_2.html VeriSign Reconsiders Search Service "Site Finder was not controversial with users, 84 percent of whom said they liked it as a helpful navigation serv

Re: Site Finder

>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

Re: Site Finder

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 ISP

Re: Site Finder

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->sitefinde

Re: Site Finder

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 ser

Re: Site Finder

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.

RE: Site Finder

>>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 o

Re: (on-topic) / RE: Site Finder

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

Re: Site Finder

st stole the customers from someone else. Especially when your technique for providing the service breaks other services. "84 percent of Internet users who have tried Site Finder said that they preferred the service to receiving an error message." If you look at IE market share (I

RE: Site Finder

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'

(on-topic) / RE: Site Finder

> 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

RE: Site Finder

--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 li

RE: Site Finder

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, no

Re: Site Finder

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

Re: Site Finder

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

Re: Site Finder

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 IN

Re: Site Finder

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

RE: Site Finder

inst the concensus. What effective action can we take as a collective group to get the point across that we will not tollerate this type of behavior? Dan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ray Bellis Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 8:08 To: n

RE: Site Finder

> 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

RE: Site Finder

y, October 16, 2003 8:08 To: nanog list Subject: Site Finder 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 availab

Site Finder

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 users who clearly like it." Well that's ve

Re: [MEDIA] McLaughlin Defends Site Finder As 'Innovation'

On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 11:28:33PM -0400, Brian Bruns wrote: > When smacked down about IE integration and WMP integration, they screamed > bloody murder and claimed freedom of innovation. Exactly what > NetSol/Verisign is doing. Maybe they have the same PR firm? Without taking a position on the

Re: [MEDIA] McLaughlin Defends Site Finder As 'Innovation'

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003, wayne wrote: > As seen on /. > > http://news.com.com/2010-1071-5086769.html Also on /. a parody of that article too funny not to link to: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=81344&cid=7150189 I reformatted it for easier reading here: http://kod.inch.com/pics/funny/Veri

Re: [MEDIA] McLaughlin Defends Site Finder As 'Innovation'

Open Source Development Group Open Solutions For A Closed World / Anti-Spam Resources http://www.2mbit.com ICQ: 8077511 - Original Message - From: "wayne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 11:14 PM Subject: [MEDIA] McLaughlin

[MEDIA] McLaughlin Defends Site Finder As 'Innovation'

As seen on /. http://news.com.com/2010-1071-5086769.html Mark McLaughlin, senior VP of Verislime, has an editorial on news.com claiming that ICANN is stifling innovation and forcing the internet to stagnate. The PR machine is out in force and painting anyone who disagrees with them as anti-cap

ICANN's SECSAC meeting on Verisign's Site Finder Service

Just passing this along - some of you may want to attend to voice your opinion. - Russ From: DCISOC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: DCISOC: SECSAC meeting on Verisign's Site Finder Service This meeting, on one of the hottest Internet topics, will be held in downtown D.C. next Tuesd

Go Daddy vs Verisign over Site Finder

Go Daddy is at it again. They filed suit against Verisign accusing Verisign of misuse of their registry position with their Site Finder service. Let's hope they win this lawsuit too! https://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/pressreleases/NR-GoDaddysuesVerisign9-22.pdf?isc=&se=%2B&from%5Fapp=

site finder performance

The redirect port 80 server seems to gain on performance, I wonder if that´s due to Verisign fixing issues or enough people blocking it so the load lowers? We´ve gone from 22 seconds average transaction time yesterday, to about two seconds so far today. Minimum achieved is 239 milliseconds, wh