North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: VeriSign's rapid DNS updates in .com/.net
because i have sometimes been accused of being unfair to markk, i checked. [email protected] (Mark Kosters) writes: > > > the primary beneficiaries of this new functionality are spammers and > > > other malfeasants, > > > > I think this is a true statement. > > Has anyone done any studies to prove this conjecture? at dictionary.reference.com we see the following: | con�jec�ture P Pronunciation Key (kn-jkchr) | n. | | 1. Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; | guesswork. | | 2. A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork: The commentators | made various conjectures about the outcome of the next election. as the author of the statement in question, and based on the definition shown, it's just not conjecture. > If this was true, maybe those registries who do perform this particular > service today ought to slow down their update frequency. as others have pointed out, spammers will always find a way to spam, and while the number of cases where the beneficiary is not a spammer is small, it's not zero. so we have to do it. but when someone says, later, that the .COM zone generator ought to use a ttl template of 300 rather than 86400 in order that changes and deletions can get the same speedy service as additions, i hope that icann will say "no." wrt the mit paper on why small ttl's are harmless, i recommend that y'all actually read it, the whole thing, plus some of the references, rather than assuming that the abstract is well supported by the body. -- Paul Vixie
|