> -----Messaggio originale----- > Da: Daryl C. W. O'Shea [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Inviato: giovedì 27 settembre 2007 19.22 > > Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote: > > > Well, I have to manually turn my MX server on and off, sometimes. So, > is it > > SA an automated process? And then, if SA issues a whois request, is > it > > automated? > > This is plain silliness, which leads me to believe that you very well > know that you're doing automated queries against whois servers against > the wishes of the operators of those whois servers.
:) > > > > It seems to me that the wording we see in whois replies is too loose > to have > > any meaning... > > The wording is clear as to how they intend the service to be used, and > more importantly (and more clearly) how it is NOT to be used. > > Just because the wording is too vague to form a legal contract of any > sort doesn't mean that you should ignore the wishes of the providers > that it not be queried by an automated process. I'm quite sure their intent is to avoid gathering data in bunches, which is not what I do. > > The problem, in fact, is that there is actually no other (easy) way > than > > whois to obtain the data you get by a whois query. > > The easiest way to obtain the amount of cash that I am interested in > obtaining is to rob a bank. Perhaps I should do that, it is after all, > the easy way. Who cares if it's right or wrong or against the wishes > of > the bank and its customers. Now you are stating plain silliness: the two things are not comparable, not even by law. How can you damage a registrar by issuing whois queries? If you start querying too much for what they regard as being too much, you'll get banned and that's all... > > The problem is that most > > registrars do provide a whois interface not because they are tied by > an > > agreement to do so, > > Actually, that would be the number one reason they do so. I don't think the terms of this agreement are too tight, then, since some gTLD do avoid exposing any whois service (apart http forms)... > > but rather because they know it is a useful tool which > > effectively helps in daily registrar-to-registrar communication. > > As has been mentioned before, public whois services aren't used by > registrars for domain management/etc. Oh, come on: during the transfer process of domain X from registrar A to registrar B, if B find some technical problem in the originating record, I guess the first thing B does it to have a look at the whois record in the A's server, in order to see if data matches. This is what whois is basically meant to: an inter-registrar tool. Then, it has the value of "deregulation", which was a key-word in 70's, and "transparency", which was a key-word in late 80's. The latter 'till end 90's, when "privacy" took place. > > At the end, the problem is in the terms by which ICANN delegates TLDs > to > > registrars, I believe. > > Regardless of any problems you see, the terms are as as they are. > Intentionally abusing a service is not the way to go about getting the > terms of use changed. I don't see any abuse in randomly querying whois for some domains, provided I'm not doing it to cause a DoS or using the replies to spam people. The wording is meant to keep away DoS and bulk fetch of e-mail. You have to put words in an historical context to get their meaning. > >>> What is the source, by the way? Which TLD? > >> Aside from the specific wording, that's pretty standard boilerplate > for > >> any registrar's WHOIS service that I've ever seen. > > Yeah, that one was from PIR, but they're all pretty much the same. > Many > are copied verbatim. whois.nic.it, in example, doesn't even mention any term of usage. Giampaolo > > > Daryl
