I agree. I think this isn't a bad service. If people want to run it more power to them.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Golding [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 12:22 PM > To: 'Stephane Bortzmeyer'; 'Steve Sobol' > Cc: Joseph Jackson; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Sitefinder II, the sequel... > > > That's absolutely ridiculous. Enterprise IT organizations > make decisions on behalf of their userbase all day. Frankly, > I'd be shocked if many tried this out - most enterprises run > their own DNS servers as part of an Active Directory scheme. > In any case, those workstations belong to the enterprise and > they can point them to whatever DNS servers they want. > > For most end-users, their Internet access provider already > selects their DNS caching server. ISPs are within their > rights to do this - I'm surprised most broadband ISPs haven't > done exactly what OpenDNS is doing to generate revenue. > > I'm sure if you look really hard, you can find something else > to be outraged about. OpenDNS isn't it. I'm at a loss to > explain why people are trying so hard to condemn something like this. > > - Daniel Golding > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf > > Of Stephane Bortzmeyer > > Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 3:09 AM > > To: Steve Sobol > > Cc: Joseph Jackson; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel... > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 11:19:51PM -0700, Steve Sobol > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 16 lines which said: > > > > > There's a big difference, of course, between > INTENTIONALLY pointing > > > your computers at DNS servers that do this kind of thing, > and having > > > it done for you without your knowledge and/or consent. > > > > As Steven Bellovin pointed out, most OpenDNS users will not > choose it: > > it will be choosen for them by their corporate IT department or by > > their Internet access provider. > > >
