North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Jason Nealis wrote: > FWIW, We had PAXFIRE in over here last week and heard their dog and pony > on the product, basically they make money by using your customer base and > diverting them to a search page that they developed with their "partners". Of > course they only divert them on failed www lookups. Okay, they are lying here. There is no way for them to tell if something is a "web lookup" or some other type of lookup at this point. Unless of course they only divert www.*, and even then other types of services may be provided by a host with a name of www.*. So they really can't make this work without breaking sometihng. bye, ken emery > It's a module plug-in into bind and if you prefer to try and do this in a > opt-in basis they have a client program that you download and it gets hooked > into the users browser. > > They claim that the embedded MSN search page that you get diverted to by IE > is making MSN millions and millions of dollars and they want the ISP's to > get some of that revenue share. > > > Jason Nealis > RCN INTERNET > > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 04:54:51PM -0500, Stephen J. Wilcox stated > > > > > > I am curious what the operational impact would be to network operators > > > > if, instead of Verisign using SiteFinder over all com and net, Verisign > > > > or their technology partner for SiteFinder began coercing a large number > > > > of independent ISPs and network operators to install their form of DNS > > > > redirection at the ISP-level, until all or most of the end-users out > > > > there were getting redirected. > > > > > > It would be no worse than NEW.NET or any other form of DNS pollution/piracy > > > (like the alternate root whackos), as long as it was clearly labelled. As > > > > Sorry my threading is screwed, something to do with the headers so I missed half > > the replies. > > > > Anyway I just sent an email, I dont think this is the same as the new.net thing, > > in that case you have an unstable situation of competing roots arising which as > > it grows or collides the operator community is left to pick up the pieces and > > complaints. > > > > With a local redirection you get to choose that you want it, you dont impose it > > on other parts of the Internet and given enough clue level your customers can > > run their own DNS if they object. > > > > So with that in mind this is no worse that http caching/smtp redirection or > > other local forms of subversion.. > > > > Steve > > > > > an occasional operator of infrastructure, I wouldn't like the complaint load > > > I'd see if the customers of such ISP's thought that *I* was inserting the > > > garbage they were seeing. So I guess my hope is, it'll be "opt-in" with an > > > explicitly held permission for every affected IP address (perhaps using some > > > kind of service discount or enhancement as the carrot.) > > > >
|