[72698] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: VeriSign's rapid DNS updates in .com/.net
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Vixie)
Fri Jul 23 03:24:53 2004
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: Paul Vixie <vixie@vix.com>
Date: 23 Jul 2004 07:24:17 +0000
In-Reply-To: <20040722210424.GB2547@verisignlabs.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
because i have sometimes been accused of being unfair to markk, i checked.
markk@verisignlabs.com (Mark Kosters) writes:
> > > the primary beneficiaries of this new functionality are spammers and
> > > other malfeasants,
> >=20
> > I think this is a true statement.=20
>=20
> Has anyone done any studies to prove this conjecture?
at dictionary.reference.com we see the following:
| con=B7jec=B7ture P Pronunciation Key (kn-jkchr)
| n.=20
|=20
| 1. Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence;
| guesswork.
|=20=20
| 2. A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork: The commentato=
rs
| made various conjectures about the outcome of the next election.
as the author of the statement in question, and based on the definition
shown, it's just not conjecture.
> If this was true, maybe those registries who do perform this particular
> service today ought to slow down their update frequency.
as others have pointed out, spammers will always find a way to spam, and
while the number of cases where the beneficiary is not a spammer is small,
it's not zero. so we have to do it. but when someone says, later, that
the .COM zone generator ought to use a ttl template of 300 rather than
86400 in order that changes and deletions can get the same speedy service
as additions, i hope that icann will say "no."
wrt the mit paper on why small ttl's are harmless, i recommend that y'all
actually read it, the whole thing, plus some of the references, rather
than assuming that the abstract is well supported by the body.
--=20
Paul Vixie
