[62679] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: VeriSign SMTP reject server updated
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bdragon@gweep.net)
Sat Sep 20 19:17:02 2003
To: nanog@merit.edu
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 19:12:46 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <3F6CD6C8.7020705@sorbs.net> from "Matthew Sullivan" at Sep 21, 2003 08:38:00 AM
From: bdragon@gweep.net
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
> >On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 11:34:17AM -0700, ken emery wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I think you haven't "gotten it". I'm getting the message from you that
> >>the changes made to the com and net gTLD's are fait accompli. From the
> >>
> >>
> >
> >That's the exact message I got from Verisign on Thursday. See:
> >http://news.com.com/2100-1024-5078657.html
> >
> >Basically Verisign is willing to tweak the service to make it less
> >controversial but not stop it.
> >
> >
> Then Verisign is no longer a responsible holder of the data and ICANN
> sould act to remove their control and invalid data.
>
> / Mat
I wonder what AT&T and InterNap have to say about it as the upstreams
I can see of AS30060. While InterNap has a short but notable career
of letting their customers do whatever they want (such as completely
deaggregate all of their address space down to /24s), I'ld think
AT&T would be somewhat responsible.
I would hope Verisign would abandon their experiment if they received
no ill-gotten gains.
