|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Verisign Responds
At 11:47 AM -0700 9/23/03, [email protected] wrote: There's a simple answer and a not so simple. The simple answer is because in one part of the tree it was expected by all players up front, and in the other it wasn't. However in general I tend to agree. The things that Verisign broke (and which have cost my company several thousand dollars in lost time and unplanned programming tasks, never mind the increase in spam) are also broken by other TLDs that use wildcards. The issues weren't clear because the impact was small. Now that they are clear, those decisions should also be revisited.lets try this again... why should a valid DNS protocol element be made illegal in some parts of the tree and not others? if its bad one place, why is it ok other places? -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Next Generation Spam Defense http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.
|