We try to get you, wherever possible, to point any and all scripts at the batch pool. When we say "not guaranteed", it doesn't mean that if this box goes offline we don't care (far from it). But since it points to Verisign's "auto batch" pool (for the CNO registrations), we have no guaranteed (from the registry) connections to their systems, so we can't extend that guarantee to you guys.
The intent of the batch pool was extended by the same intent for verisign to create a "batch" pool, whereby massive "checks" for domains could be performed and not affect the regular "legitimate" pool (I'm using a lot of quoted words and paranthesized comments ... hrm). Basically we want good wholesome transactions to go through our regular pool, and other activities (massive scripting, scripted lookups, digging for data through the RWI interfaces, etc) to go through batch.opensrs.net so the "other" activities don't affect the regular day to day business of other resellers (as these activities occasionally do, especially during the daily "drop" time) Phew... Charles Daminato OpenSRS Product Manager Tucows Inc. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Paul Chvostek > Sent: September 9, 2002 1:20 PM > To: Charles Daminato > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Bulk Check > > > 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/ >
