David Conrad wrote:
> People keep making the assertion that top-level domains that have the
> same strings as popular file extensions will be a 'security disaster'
Microsoft, in its infinite wisdom and desire to not abide by standards
it has not set decided that instead of relying on the Mime
Tony Finch wrote:
So you say the solution for bad regulation is more regulation.
Been the liberal-socialist mantra for eons.
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non orit
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 13:13:31 EDT, "Jay R. Ashworth" said:
> On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 12:43:54AM -0500, James Hess wrote:
> > Maybe it's not that bad. The eventual result is instead of having a
> > billion .COM SLDs, there are a billion TLDs:
>
> No, no, no, no, no.
>
> A billion people don't ha
On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 06:08:43AM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
> >Seeing as a certain popular operating system confounds local file
> >access via
> >Explorer with internet access...
>
> I gather you're implying MS Windows does this?
Start->Run.
Type in the full filename of a binary on your path
On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 12:43:54AM -0500, James Hess wrote:
> Maybe it's not that bad. The eventual result is instead of having a
> billion .COM SLDs, there are a billion TLDs:
No, no, no, no, no.
A billion people don't have half-a-mil each to set up TLD registries.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R.
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, David Conrad wrote:
>
> I could maybe see a problem with ".LOCAL" due to mdns or llmnr or ".1"
> due to the risk of someone registering "127.0.0.1"
RFC 1123 section 2.1 says TLDs can't be purely numeric.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dotat.at/
BISCAY
Rob Pickering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Or .com. Oddly enough I just now found a Windows box and typed
> "command.com" in a browser URL bar and it did what I expected, when I
> typed the same thing at a cmd prompt it did something different and I
> expected that too.
1. Copy \windows\syste
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 09:32:00 EDT, Marshall Eubanks said:
> How many .com domains are there ? I have a _2001_ report of 19
> million. I would guess maybe 50 million by now.
The last numbers I saw was 140M .coms. However, due to the incredible
amount of churn due to domain-tasting by spammers, 5
Once again, I am baffled that people would rather speculate than do
five minutes of reading. (Well, maybe baffled isn't the word.)
>There is the question of the fee structure. If the fee is really > $
>100,000 USD, then this will damp down the numbers considerably.
The fee isn't set, but I hav
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 07:19:45PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Jun 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > one might legitimately argue that ICANN is in need of some serious
> > > regulation that can happen at that national level or
> People keep making the assertion that top-level domains that
> have the same strings as popular file extensions will be a
> 'security disaster', but I've yet to see an explanation of
> the potential exploits. I could maybe see a problem with
> ".LOCAL" due to mdns or llmnr or ".1" due to the
Maybe it's not that bad. The eventual result is instead of having
a billion .COM SLDs, there are a billion TLDs: all eggs in one
There are simply not going to me billions, millions, or even probably
tens of thousands of TLDs as a result of this. It's still a complex
several months long adm
On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 04:01:34AM -, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> > Doesn't ICANN already work like an international regulator?
>
> No. They are more like the IETF than the ITU, but not quite the IETF.
> It's hard to describe. The origins are Berkman Center for Internet
> and Soceity at Harvard,
On Jul 1, 2008, at 1:43 AM, James Hess wrote:
I'm still having a hard time seeing what everyone is getting worked
up about.
Maybe it's not that bad. The eventual result is instead of having a
billion .COM SLDs, there are a billion TLDs: all eggs in one basket,
There is the question of t
On Jun 30, 2008, at 10:43 PM, James Hess wrote:
Sure, nefarious use of say .local could cause a few problems but
this is
I'd be more concerned about nefarious use of a TLD like ".DLL",
".EXE", ".TXT"
Or other domains that look like filenames.
Like .INFO, .PL, .SH, and, of course, .COM?
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 07:19:45PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > one might legitimately argue that ICANN is in need of
> > some serious regulation
> >
> > that can happen at that national level or on the international
> > level.
> I'm still having a hard time seeing what everyone is getting worked up about.
Maybe it's not that bad. The eventual result is instead of having a
billion .COM SLDs, there are a billion TLDs: all eggs in one basket,
the root zone -- there will be so many gTLD servers, no DNS resolver
can cache
> Doesn't ICANN already work like an international regulator?
No. They are more like the IETF than the ITU, but not quite the IETF. It's hard
to describe. The origins are Berkman Center for Internet and Soceity at
Harvard, and what is in existence today is a far cry from the original social
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> one might legitimately argue that ICANN is in need of
> some serious regulation
>
> that can happen at that national level or on the international
> level.
Doesn't ICANN already work like an international regulator?
Ton
--On 29 June 2008 23:59 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
one might legitimately argue that ICANN is in need of
some serious regulation
that can happen at that national level or on the international
level.
It is very likely that "serious regulation" particularl
this may actually be the straw that triggers a serious redesign of the
Internet's lookup system(s)... if not this, then IPv6 has a good chance.
Incremental changes are good - are stable (usually), and often can be
compartmentalized. But sometimes - revolutionary changes are needed.
and if
This is currently a mostly capex-less exercise. I agree, the load is on
operations, and likely at ICANN, VeriSign, and the DoC.
We need way more detail than we have, but I hope all parties and the AC's move
in a stewardship -and- commerce friendly direction with this. Even if it causes
an e
22 matches
Mail list logo
