On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 07:59:14AM -0400, Charles Daminato wrote: > > The difference is that the two systems are seperate. rr-n1-tor is a pool of > machines setup for general use and is 100% supported by our organization. > Also, the backend points to "guaranteed" pools at the registry > > batch.opensrs.net is the same code as rr-n1-tor, but it's setup to point to > the "batch pools" at the registries, and NOT a guaranteed interface - but we > DO allow scripting against that machine (within reason).
It is wonderful to hear the difference finally. (If it was mentioned before, I missed it.) > We do NOT allow scripting against the rr-n1-tor pools Uh... Scripting AT ALL, or within reason? At present, I put new domain orders into pending, and run credit cards through a batch-based process with my bank (which is *way* cheaper than the standard Internet clearing mechanisms). It costs me $0.08 per batch to upload, and take 10 to 15 minutes for a batch to be processed. So when a batch result comes back saying that a particular transaction cleared, I've got a script (based on Tom Brown's old Perl password.cgi) which logs in to the RWI, finds the order and processes it. Personally, I'd much rather this sort of thing go through "guaranteed" channels. Do you see potential for abuse? Should I point it at batch rather than rr-n1-tor? -- Paul Chvostek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Operations / Abuse / Whatever +1 416 598-0000 it.canada - hosting and development http://www.it.ca/
