Well I just asked the question during the Getting Ready panel at the
ICANN 41 meeting.
Q: How much on top of the $185K is required for a new gTLD
Answers:
It is hard to say, too many variables, biz plan dependencies, if the
string will be contended it can go to a more complex/costly process,
Well I just asked the question during the Getting Ready panel at the
ICANN 41 meeting.
keep in mind that the venues for asking precise questions for the
purpose of obtaining accurate answers of record are tdg-legal, or
the saturday gnso gtld hours (the kurt show).
Q: How much on top of the
keep in mind that the venues for asking precise questions for the
purpose of obtaining accurate answers of record are tdg-legal, or
the saturday gnso gtld hours (the kurt show).
Kurt Show that's a good one.
I was not expecting any elaborated response, just see if anybody on
that panel had a
Lets say I want to apply for .WINE with commercial purposes, then what
is a ballpark figure for the funds/investment required ?
My guess, it is way way above the $185K
assuming no defect in the application, necessitiating a second bite
at the apple, at cost (extended eval), and no objections
Lets say I want to apply for .WINE with commercial purposes, then what
is a ballpark figure for the funds/investment required ?
I wouldn't try it with less than a million bucks in hand. Beyond the
ICANN application nonsense, you'd also want to budget something for
running and promoting it for
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:10 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
Lets say I want to apply for .WINE with commercial purposes, then what
is a ballpark figure for the funds/investment required ?
I wouldn't try it with less than a million bucks in hand. Beyond the
ICANN application nonsense,
My perception is that if you don't have access to ~$2M for that kind
of gTLD don't even waste your time.
you may want to consult with a practitioner in the jurisdiction of your
choice who does business organization and investor equity structures,
as the cost to acquire a right to contract for a
On 21 Jun 2011, at 00:29, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
I will repeat my assertion. There is no such thing as glue records
for the nameservers at the top of the zone within the zone itself
be they in-baliwick or not. Glue records live in the parent zone
and are there to avoid the catch
I was talking about public perception and the ability to change it
through marketing; not any actual security.
It's like the difference between .com and .biz, people don't
understand when something isn't a .com and don't trust it. When I
say people I'm talking about the average non-technical
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 18:39:00 MDT, Joel Maslak said:
I wonder what sort of money .wpad would be worth...
I was thinking .gbmh myself...
pgpRDYInukJWY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Or .inc?
On Jun 21, 2011 10:57 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 18:39:00 MDT, Joel Maslak said:
I wonder what sort of money .wpad would be worth...
I was thinking .gbmh myself...
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu wrote:
I was talking about public perception and the ability to change it
through marketing; not any actual security.
It's like the difference between .com and .biz, people don't
understand when something isn't a .com and don't trust
I was talking about public perception and the ability to change it
through marketing; not any actual security.
It's like the difference between .com and .biz, people don't
understand when something isn't a .com and don't trust it. When I
say people I'm talking about the average
(Mark:)
Which just means we need to write yet another RFC saying that
resolvers shouldn't lookup simple host names in the DNS. Simple
host names should be qualified against a search list.
I don't see the problem. I'm happily running with a empty search
list for the last
In message 4dfedb8b.5080...@dougbarton.us, Doug Barton writes:
On 06/19/2011 19:31, Paul Vixie wrote:
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 19:22:46 -0700
From: Michael Thomasm...@mtcc.com
that's a good question. marka mentioned writing an RFC, but i expect
that ICANN could also have an impact on
On Jun 17, 2011, at 9:13 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Jun 17, 2011, at 4:04 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I really don't think that namespace issues are part of the role for the ASO
AC.
Why do you think there is an ASO?
This is clearly a problem for ICANN's disaster-ridden domain-name side, and
In message 201106200739.p5k7dxhj071...@bartok.nlnetlabs.nl, Jaap Akkerhuis wr
ites:
(Mark:)
Which just means we need to write yet another RFC saying that
resolvers shouldn't lookup simple host names in the DNS. Simple
host names should be qualified against a search
Which is your choice. Lots of others want search lists. I've seen
requests for 20+ elements.
So they get what they ask for: Ambiguity in resolving the name space.
jaap
In message 201106200951.p5k9pmsw051...@bartok.nlnetlabs.nl, Jaap Akkerhuis wr
ites:
Which is your choice. Lots of others want search lists. I've seen
requests for 20+ elements.
So they get what they ask for: Ambiguity in resolving the name space.
jaap
There is no
Simple hostnames as, global identifiers, were supposed to cease
to work in 1984.
Can you point out where that is stated?
jaap
In message 201106201034.p5kayz2e008...@bartok.nlnetlabs.nl, Jaap Akkerhuis wr
ites:
Simple hostnames as, global identifiers, were supposed to cease
to work in 1984.
Can you point out where that is stated?
jaap
RFC 897.
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas
Randy Bush ra...@psg.com writes:
what's new? how about the operational technical effects, like data from
modeling various resolvers' responses to a large root zone?
I think the proper model is popular TLDs, perhaps the traditional
gTLDs. As any (even former) decent sized TLD operator can
* Adam Atkinson:
It was a very long time ago, but I seem to recall being shown
http://dk, the home page of Denmark, some time in the mid 90s.
Must I be recalling incorrectly?
It must have been before 1996. Windows environments cannot resolve
A/ records for single-label domain names.
--
Matthew Palmer mpal...@hezmatt.org writes:
And it only gets better from there... how many places have various cutesy
naming schemes that might include one or more trademarks (or whatever) that
someone might want as a TLD?
As it happens, I have a set of routers that are named { craftsman,
Florian Weimer wrote:
It was a very long time ago, but I seem to recall being shown
http://dk, the home page of Denmark, some time in the mid 90s.
Must I be recalling incorrectly?
It must have been before 1996. Windows environments cannot resolve
A/ records for single-label domain
On Jun 20, 2011, at 12:14 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
So they get what they ask for: Ambiguity in resolving the name space.
There is no ambiguity if tld operators don't unilaterally add address
records causing simple hostnames to resolve.
EDU.COM.
Regards,
-drc
Another avenue could be At-Large. The North American Regional At-Large
Organization (NARALO) - uniquely amongst the RALO's - accepts individual
members.
http://naralo.org
j
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 10:26 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
Well, yes, ICANN could have contracted
On 18 Jun 2011, at 09:22, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
In . lives a pointer to apple. consisting of one or more NS records and
possibly some A/ glue for those nameservers if they are within apple.
Don't forget the DS records containing the hash of Apple's DNSSEC KSK.
Tony.
--
Technical issues aside (and there are many...)
How long before we see marketing campaigns urging people to only trust
.band and that .com et. al. are less secure.
With a $185,000 application fee this tends to really kill small
businesses and conditions the public to favor ecommerce with the
From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Mon Jun 20 00:15:32
2011
To: David Conrad d...@virtualized.org
From: Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org
Subject: Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:14:49 +1000
Cc: NANOG list nanog@nanog.org
Now that the cat is out of the bag, maybe we should look at trying to
get people to make use of FQDN's more.
I just added a rewrite to my person site to give it a try, and threw a
quick note up about it:
http://soucy.org./whydot.php
So far, it looks like every browser correctly respects the use
On 20 Jun 2011, at 02:24, Paul Vixie vi...@isc.org wrote:
furthermore, the internet has more in it than just the web, and i know that
foo@sony. will not have its RHS (sony.) treated as a hierarchical name.
Trailing dots are not permitted on mail domains.
There has been an ongoing argument
- Original Message -
From: Tony Finch d...@dotat.at
Trailing dots are not permitted on mail domains.
I couldn't believe that, so I went and checked 5322. Tony's right:
there is no way to write an email address which is deterministic,
unless mail servers ignore the DNS search path.
How long before we see marketing campaigns urging people to only trust
.band and that .com et. al. are less secure.
An interesting question. There was a group that was supposed to work
on high security TLDs. I suggested that to be usefully high
security, the registry should make site visits to
On Jun 20, 2011, at 2:35 AM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Randy Bush ra...@psg.com writes:
what's new? how about the operational technical effects, like data from
modeling various resolvers' responses to a large root zone?
Yep. That is an area that has been identified as needing additional
With a $185,000 application fee this tends to really kill small
businesses and conditions the public to favor ecommerce with the
giants, not to mention a nice revenue boost for ICANN.
Would love to hear the dirt on backroom conversations that led to this
decision...
Hopefully there will
Simple hostnames as, global identifiers, were supposed to cease
to work in 1984.
Can you point out where that is stated?
jaap
RFC 897.
I see where it says that all of the hosts that existed in 1984 were
supposed to change their names to something with at least two
ray,
... only trust .band and that .com et. al. are less secure.
secure is not a well-defined term.
as the .com registry access model accepts credit card fraud risk,
a hypothetical registry, say .giro, with wholesale registration at
the same dollar price point but an access mechanism accepting
On 20 Jun 2011, at 08:43, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
There is also no such thing as in-bailiwick glue for the TLD’s DNS servers.
The root zone contains glue for TLDs. No TLD zone contains glue for TLDs.
In-bailiwick means that the nameservers for a zone are under the apex of that
Another avenue could be At-Large. The North American Regional At-Large
Organization (NARALO) - uniquely amongst the RALO's - accepts individual
members.
as the elected unaffiliated member representative (or umr) i suppose i
should point out that (a) yes, the structural feature of individual
In message 77733847-fbf7-460a-ad30-08dc42dc3...@virtualized.org, David Conrad
writes:
On Jun 20, 2011, at 12:14 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
So they get what they ask for: Ambiguity in resolving the name space.
There is no ambiguity if tld operators don't unilaterally add address
records
On Jun 20, 2011, at 11:19 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
do you want to issue a RFC that bans search lists?
Personally, I think search lists are a mistake and don't use them. If you do
use them, then you are accepting a certain amount of ambiguity. Naked TLDs will
increase that ambiguity and would
In message 20110620190517.2242.qm...@joyce.lan, John Levine writes:
Simple hostnames as, global identifiers, were supposed to cease
to work in 1984.
Can you point out where that is stated?
jaap
RFC 897.
I see where it says that all of the hosts that existed in
(Marka)
See RFC 1535. Yes, a mistake was made implementing search lists.
A RFC was issued to say don't do search lists this way.
Which RFC? What way?
It would be nice if you would say what you mean instead keep referring to
things the reader has to guess.
jaap
Paul Graydon wrote:
I've seen the stuff about adding a few extra TLDs, like XXX. I haven't
seen any references until now of them considering doing it on a
commercial basis. I don't mind new TLDs, but company ones are crazy
and going to lead to a confusing and messy internet.
I don't know
do you want to issue a RFC that bans search lists?
Personally, I think search lists are a mistake and don't use them.
You're in good company. It's hard to find a modern mail system that
allows abbreviated domain names in addresses. I just checked the mail
at AOL, Yahoo, Gmail, and Hotmail,
In message 3da313a7-911e-4439-9082-b50844338...@dotat.at, Tony Finch writes:
On 20 Jun 2011, at 08:43, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
=20
There is also no such thing as in-bailiwick glue for the TLD=E2=80=99s DN=
S servers. The root zone contains glue for TLDs. No TLD zone contains glu=
185K is just the application few, the process includes some
requirements to have a given amount of dough for operations in escrow,
add what you need to pay attorneys, experts
, lobbyists, and setup and staff a small corporation even if you plan
to outsource part of the dayt-2-day operations to a
In message b568f14d-2d30-4501-bac9-fb3b4125a...@virtualized.org, David Conrad
writes:
On Jun 20, 2011, at 11:19 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
do you want to issue a RFC that bans search lists?
Personally, I think search lists are a mistake and don't use them. If
you do use them, then you are
In message 201106202158.p5klwaxw088...@bartok.nlnetlabs.nl, Jaap Akkerhuis wr
ites:
(Marka)
See RFC 1535. Yes, a mistake was made implementing search lists.
A RFC was issued to say don't do search lists this way.
Which RFC? What way?
RFC 1535.
A Security
In message 20110620223618.2927.qm...@joyce.lan, John Levine writes:
do you want to issue a RFC that bans search lists?
Personally, I think search lists are a mistake and don't use them.
You're in good company. It's hard to find a modern mail system that
allows abbreviated domain names
185K is just the application few, the process includes some
requirements to have a given amount of dough for operations in escrow,
add what you need to pay attorneys, experts
, lobbyists, and setup and staff a small corporation even if you plan
to outsource part of the dayt-2-day operations
I wonder what sort of money .wpad would be worth...
- Original Message -
From: Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org
In message 20110620223618.2927.qm...@joyce.lan, John Levine
writes:
You're in good company. It's hard to find a modern mail system that
allows abbreviated domain names in addresses. I just checked the
mail at AOL, Yahoo,
And you are to be complimented on your diligence in this respect, Eric.
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 6:21 PM, brun...@nic-naa.net wrote:
this is still an area of active work, i was working on it ... yesterday
and the day before, today, and tomorrow and the day after tomorrow ...
--
David Conrad d...@virtualized.org writes:
I believe the root server operators have stated (the equivalent of) that
it is not their job to make editorial decisions on what the root zone
contains. They distribute what the ICANN/NTIA/Verisign gestalt
publishes.
yes. for one example, see:
- Original Message -
From: Paul Vixie vi...@isc.org
David Conrad d...@virtualized.org writes:
I believe the root server operators have stated (the equivalent of) that
it is not their job to make editorial decisions on what the root zone
contains. They distribute what the
Now I'm tempted to be the guy that gets .mail
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 20:47, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: John Levine jo...@iecc.com
The notion of a single-component FQDN would be quite a breakage for
the basic concept of using both FQDNs and
Now I'm tempted to be the guy that gets .mail
express that temptation in dollars, and well into two commas.
randy
Once upon a time, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com said:
Now I'm tempted to be the guy that gets .mail
express that temptation in dollars, and well into two commas.
Imagine the typo-squating someone could do with .con.
--
Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY
On Jun 19, 2011, at 8:49 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com said:
Now I'm tempted to be the guy that gets .mail
express that temptation in dollars, and well into two commas.
Imagine the typo-squating someone could do with .con.
See section 2.2.1.1 (and section
It was a very long time ago, but I seem to recall being shown http://dk,
the home page of Denmark, some time in the mid 90s.
Must I be recalling incorrectly?
The same type that Colombia/NeuStar is doing with .co?
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com said:
Now I'm tempted to be the guy that gets .mail
express that temptation in dollars, and well into two commas.
Adam Atkinson gh...@mistral.co.uk writes:
It was a very long time ago, but I seem to recall being shown http://dk,
the home page of Denmark, some time in the mid 90s.
Must I be recalling incorrectly?
no you need not must be. it would work as long as no dk.this or dk.that
would be found
Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com writes:
... and that the root wouldn't be affected by the sort of things that
previously-2LD now TLD operators might want to do with their
monocomponent names...
someone asked me privately a related question which is, if there's a .SONY
and someone's web browser
On Jun 19, 2011, at 9:51 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Paul Vixie vi...@isc.org
David Conrad d...@virtualized.org writes:
I believe the root server operators have stated (the equivalent of) that
it is not their job to make editorial decisions on what the root
On Jun 19, 2011, at 11:59 AM, David Conrad wrote:
On Jun 19, 2011, at 8:49 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com said:
Now I'm tempted to be the guy that gets .mail
express that temptation in dollars, and well into two commas.
Imagine the typo-squating someone
In message g339j59ywz@nsa.vix.com, Paul Vixie writes:
Adam Atkinson gh...@mistral.co.uk writes:
It was a very long time ago, but I seem to recall being shown http://dk,
the home page of Denmark, some time in the mid 90s.
Must I be recalling incorrectly?
no you need not must be.
Appears to now get you a redirect to https://www.dk-hostmaster.dk/
For those arguing that 512+ octet replies don't occur:
baikal:owen (14) ~ % dig @a.nic.dk -t any dk.2011/06/19
17:03:56
;; Truncated, retrying in TCP mode.
; DiG 9.6.0-APPLE-P2 @a.nic.dk -t any dk.
;
Original Message -
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
OTOH, I can easily see $COMPANY deciding that $RFC is not in their
best interests and find the http://microsoft construct not at all
unlikely.
I realize that no responsible software vendor would ever deliberately
do something
- Original Message -
From: Paul Vixie vi...@isc.org
Adam Atkinson gh...@mistral.co.uk writes:
It was a very long time ago, but I seem to recall being shown
http://dk, the home page of Denmark, some time in the mid 90s.
Must I be recalling incorrectly?
no you need not must be.
In message 21633.1308527...@nsa.vix.com, Paul Vixie writes:
Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com writes:
... and that the root wouldn't be affected by the sort of things that
previously-2LD now TLD operators might want to do with their
monocomponent names...
someone asked me privately a
- Original Message -
From: Paul Vixie vi...@isc.org
inevitably there will be folks who register .FOOBAR and advertise it as
http://foobar/; on a billboard and then get burned by all of the local
foobar.this.tld and foobar.that.tld names that will get reached
instead of their TLD. i
DK may not be hierarchical, but DK. is. If you try to resolve DK on
it's own, many (most? all?) DNS clients will attach the search string/domain
name of the local system in order to make it a FQDN. The same happens when
you try and resolve a non-existent domain. Such as
alskdiufwfeiuwdr3948dx.com,
In message d066e1c4-cc70-4105-b2ed-a2af9b1b2...@delong.com, Owen DeLong write
s:
Appears to now get you a redirect to https://www.dk-hostmaster.dk/
For those arguing that 512+ octet replies don't occur:
I don't think anyone argues that 512+ octet replies don't occur.
They have occured for as
A surprising number of TLDs have A records. Many are hosts with web
servers, a few are hosts with misconfigured or unconfigured web
servers (ph. and bi.), some don't respond. No TLD has an record,
confirming the theory that nobody actually cares about IPv6.
ac. 193.223.78.210
ai.
In message BANLkTinAZvLc4oQEW5Nq8eTrch=x6hs...@mail.gmail.com, Jeremy writes:
DK may not be hierarchical, but DK. is. If you try to resolve DK on
DK. is NOT a hostname (RFC 952). It is NOT legal in a SMTP transaction.
It is NOT legal in a HTTP header.
it's own, many (most? all?) DNS
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 19:30:58 -0500
From: Jeremy jba...@gmail.com
DK may not be hierarchical, but DK. is. If you try to resolve DK
on it's own, many (most? all?) DNS clients will attach the search
string/domain name of the local system in order to make it a FQDN. The
same happens when
On 6/19/2011 9:24 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
i think we have to just discourage lookups of single-token names, universally.
Not to mention the folks of the Redmond persuasion with their
additionally ambiguous \\hostname single names.
(In the absence of a configured search domain, Windows won't even
Vix:
i think he's seen RFC 1034 :-). anyway, i don't see the difference
between http://sony/ and http://sony./
The fact that the resolution of sony. is deterministic, and that of
sony is location dependent?
i think we have to just discourage lookups of single-token names,
universally.
In
On Jun 19, 2011, at 3:24 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
i think we have to just discourage lookups of single-token names, universally.
How?
Regards,
-drc
From: David Conrad d...@virtualized.org
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 16:04:09 -1000
On Jun 19, 2011, at 3:24 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
i think we have to just discourage lookups of single-token names,
universally.
How?
that's a good question. marka mentioned writing an RFC, but i expect
that
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 08:22:17PM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Paul Vixie vi...@isc.org
inevitably there will be folks who register .FOOBAR and advertise it as
http://foobar/; on a billboard and then get burned by all of the local
foobar.this.tld and
On 06/19/2011 07:08 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
From: David Conradd...@virtualized.org
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 16:04:09 -1000
On Jun 19, 2011, at 3:24 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
i think we have to just discourage lookups of single-token names,
universally.
How?
that's a good
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 02:08:18AM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
From: David Conrad d...@virtualized.org
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 16:04:09 -1000
On Jun 19, 2011, at 3:24 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
i think we have to just discourage lookups of single-token names,
universally.
How?
On Jun 19, 2011, at 4:08 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
ICANN could also have an impact on this by having applicants sign something
Well, yes, ICANN could have contracted parties (e.g., the new gTLDs) do this. A
bit late to get it into the Applicant's Guidebook, but maybe something could be
slipped in
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 19:22:46 -0700
From: Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com
that's a good question. marka mentioned writing an RFC, but i expect
that ICANN could also have an impact on this by having applicants sign
something that says i know that my single-label top level domain name
In message 4dfeaef6.70...@mtcc.com, Michael Thomas writes:
Isn't this problem self regulating? If sufficient things break
with a single label, people will stop making themselves
effectively unreachable, right?
The failure rate isn't going to be high enough for natural selection
to take
The failure rate isn't going to be high enough for natural selection
to take effect. Remember the protocols we use were designed to
work back when there was only a single flat namespace. Simple
hostnames will appear to work fine for 99.999% of people. It's
just when you get namespace
Mark Andrews wrote:
It was a very long time ago, but I seem to recall being shown http://dk,
the home page of Denmark, some time in the mid 90s.
DK should NOT be doing this.
Oh, I'm not claiming it does it now. It certainly doesn't.
I _think_ I was shown http://dk in about 1993 or 1994 as
i think he's seen RFC 1034 :-). anyway, i don't see the difference between
http://sony/ and http://sony./
Neither do any of the browsers I use, which resolve http://bi/ as well
as http://dk./ just fine. Whatever problem unqualified TLD names
might present to web browsers has been around for a
Adam Atkinson wrote:
It was a very long time ago, but I seem to recall being shown
http://dk,
the home page of Denmark, some time in the mid 90s.
DK should NOT be doing this.
Oh, I'm not claiming it does it now. It certainly doesn't.
I should have checked before I wrote that. The _last_
In message 5a6d953473350c4b9995546afe9939ee0d633...@rwc-ex1.corp.seven.com, G
eorge Bonser writes:
The failure rate isn't going to be high enough for natural selection
to take effect. Remember the protocols we use were designed to
work back when there was only a single flat namespace.
- Original Message -
From: John Levine jo...@iecc.com
i think he's seen RFC 1034 :-). anyway, i don't see the difference
between http://sony/ and http://sony./
Neither do any of the browsers I use, which resolve http://bi/ as well
as http://dk./ just fine. Whatever problem
On Jun 19, 2011, at 5:46 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
I would guess that most of these are going to be purchased simply to
prevent someone else from getting them
I would agree with this part.
I suspect you underestimate the desires and power of marketing folks at larger
organizations.
Adding
In message 4dfec221.90...@mistral.co.uk, Adam Atkinson writes:
Adam Atkinson wrote:
It was a very long time ago, but I seem to recall being shown
http://dk,
the home page of Denmark, some time in the mid 90s.
DK should NOT be doing this.
Oh, I'm not claiming it does it now. It
In message 1bc921a3-c4cd-4fff-9ae5-49c1218d5...@virtualized.org, David Conrad
writes:
On Jun 19, 2011, at 5:46 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
I would guess that most of these are going to be purchased simply to
prevent someone else from getting them
I would agree with this part.
I suspect you
Mark Andrews wrote:
_Now_ I get rend up at http://www.dk.com/ if I don't
That's your browser trying to be helpful. If it is Firefox this
can be turned off with about:config and browser.fixup.alternate.enabled
to false. The default is true.
Ah, thanks. I imagined it was FF trying to be
In message 20110620033503.20835.qm...@joyce.lan, John Levine writes:
i think he's seen RFC 1034 :-). anyway, i don't see the difference between
http://sony/ and http://sony./
Neither do any of the browsers I use, which resolve http://bi/ as well
as http://dk./ just fine. Whatever problem
I would guess that most of these are going to be purchased simply to
prevent someone else from getting them
I would agree with this part.
and that most of them will never
actually be placed into production.
But not with this part.
Well, I said most, some will likely be placed
1 - 100 of 190 matches
Mail list logo
