On Sep 03, 2013, at 02:41 , Scott Hulbert <[email protected]> wrote: > Matthew Petach <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Why not just use the TWC nameservers, >> if thiings work when you use them instead >> of the Google nameservers? >> > > One reason would be that TWC used to hijack failed DNS requests and show > advertisements ( > http://netcodger.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/roadrunner-returns-to-dns-hijack-tactics/ > ). Without condoning or decrying this practice, I believe TWC allows you to opt-out of that. (Whether they should require you to "opt-out", or do it at all, is intentionally not discussed.) > Also, Google DNS and OpenDNS helped manually clean up bad records after the > NYTimes had their nameservers changed at the TLD registry ( > http://blog.cloudflare.com/details-behind-todays-internet-hacks). What makes you think TWC did not do the same? And it was a lot more than the New York Times that had issues, and there was a lot more than a single instance of this. To be clear, Google is Johnny On The Spot when these things happen, and kudos to them for it. But so are lots of other providers (e.g. OpenDNS, who has been doing this a lot longer than Google), they just might not have "teh GOOG" name to get them in the press & blogs. -- TTFN, patrick
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
