[62855] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verisign Responds
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kee Hinckley)
Tue Sep 23 15:51:36 2003
In-Reply-To: <200309231847.h8NIlP609574@karoshi.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 15:36:16 -0400
To: bmanning@karoshi.com
From: Kee Hinckley <nazgul@somewhere.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
At 11:47 AM -0700 9/23/03, bmanning@karoshi.com wrote:
> lets try this again... why should a valid DNS protocol element
> be made illegal in some parts of the tree and not others?
> if its bad one place, why is it ok other places?
There's a simple answer and a not so simple. The simple answer is
because in one part of the tree it was expected by all players up
front, and in the other it wasn't. However in general I tend to
agree. The things that Verisign broke (and which have cost my
company several thousand dollars in lost time and unplanned
programming tasks, never mind the increase in spam) are also broken
by other TLDs that use wildcards. The issues weren't clear because
the impact was small. Now that they are clear, those decisions
should also be revisited.
--
Kee Hinckley
http://www.messagefire.com/ Next Generation Spam Defense
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society
I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.
