Lets start this off with I agree Versign has done things in the past that
were on the shady side. But I also feel that on this issue they are being
targeted because they are the largest TLD operator with a wildcard
implementation.
A good side affect is that if I was receiving spam from a nonexistane
.museum domain MAILFROM would not fail. Would Scott have fixed Declude to
handle wildcards?
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Phillip B.
Holmes
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 11:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] VeriGrime
Kevin,
I agree in theory to your point but your argument does not take
the scale of
this situation into consideration. The .com extension is
typically the most
sought after extension. .Net is widely used for ISPs that have been most
affected by operator processes that are / were in place for their users /
network optimization.
This maneuver was not a violation DNS specification. However, this
substantially more serious and market affecting than anything
else that has
happened so far. Lets forget about the hundreds of thousands of
processes it
disabled for a minute and just look at the possible legal violations of
VeriSign's Registry Agreement. There are far reaching ramifications
pertaining the search engine market as well (Hence the 100 million dollar
antitrust lawsuit:
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/6818688.htm).
What the Verisign petition/lawsuit is saying is if you rob Fort Knox clean
it is not ok, but if you just rob a small town bank you should be able to
walk free.
If Versign's laywers are smart they will get the suit thrown out in bias.
They are not listing or sewing any other TLD owners that are using
wildcards.
I am not the owner of whois.sc. So, I would express your opinion
directly to
them. I posted that for the thousands of sysadmins that have had tens of
thousands of processes break because of the unilateral change made by this
wildcard implementation. I also point out that VeriBlind did this without
ICANN approval. This has also prompted the IAB to release a commentary on
the use of DNS wildcards:
http://www.iab.org/documents/docs/2003-09-20-dns-wildcards.html
This article makes no mention of VeriSign. Instead it says "Problems
encountered in a recent experiment with wildcards"
At least they are being fair and not specifically mentioning a particular
TLD operator. That was my original point.
Today, ICANN has formerly asked VeriSlime to voluntarily suspend the Site
Finder "service" pending an investigation that was ALREADY underway before
the update was released.
Then ICANN should ask all TLD operators to remove their wildcard
implementations. They affect queries just like Verisigns wildcards. Once
again BIAS against Verisign because they are the operators of the two
largest TLDs.
VeriMime has been strangely very quiet. I wonder why.
Best Regards,
Phillip B. Holmes
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Kevin Bilbee
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 12:31 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] VeriCrime
I think for this to stick they need to change the letter to address the
issue of other TLD systems that do the same thing. YOU are TARGETING one
company when in fact others started this before Verisign with other TLDs.
If this is what you actual believe on its technical
merits/violation of the
RFCs then the letter should be expanded to include all companies
that manage
TLD root servers that return and answer for non-existent domains.
Although I think the letter makes good technical points, I think it is
misplaced to reference only Verisign.
I would sign a letter that includes all companies that manage TLD root
servers that return answers for non-existent domain names.
My two cents.
Kevin Bilbee
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Phillip Holmes
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 7:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] VeriCrime
Petition against VeriCrime's abuse of root operation:
http://www.whois.sc/verisign-dns/
Best Regards,
Phillip B. Holmes
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of serge
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 5:22 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Veriscam
oops
just found something in the archive, please disregard my question
if it was
already explained here in simple tems
i will read the archives and see if i get it :)