Kirk,

    I am not sure there is a way to implement this without breaking a lot of
things, as Verisign has done. Putting a wildcard on a namespace like that is
a pain in the neck for admins trying to track down lame dns transfers - they
seem to resolve when they shouldn't, because an A record has been defined.
Running linkbots over sites you have developed is less helpful how since
even mistyped .com and .net links will return some type of http response and
check out as valid. There are numerous technical reasons why this type of
wildcarding is dangerous, applying on a whole range of protocols - not just
the Web. For example mailservers will never reject mail due to an 'unknown
domain' error - failing an MX lookup, an MTA will settle for an A record,
and since this is always defined, 'non-existant' domains are never invalid
to mail servers. Invalid mail then generates unnecessary traffic, and
bounces may take longer or may not happen at all, depending on how the
'invalid' end deals with it.

<redundant_rant>
With regards to what Verisign have done, I feel that the authority given to
them by the US Federal Government over the .com and .net namespace is being
misused for Verisign's self promotion. Reading their terms of service is
downright maddening. Example:

#10 - Sole Remedy: "YOUR USE OF THE VERISIGN SERVICES IS AT YOUR OWN RISK.
IF YOU ARE DISSATISFIED WITH ANY OF THE MATERIALS, RESULTS OR OTHER CONTENTS
OF THE VERISIGN SERVICES OR WITH THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, OUR PRIVACY
STATEMENT, OR OTHER POLICIES, YOUR SOLE REMEDY IS TO DISCONTINUE USE OF THE
VERISIGN SERVICES OR OUR SITE.

So if we dont like it we have to...stop using the Internet? Being custodian
of a namespace does not mean you have the right to do what you wish with
unregistered domain names.
</redundant_rant>

Max

Kirk Fletcher wrote:
> Chris,
>
> Good point.
>
> It's worse in a way - in that if it occurs at a registry level, then
> the registry has an absolute monopy.  But you're right - I've
> always considered the Microsoft thing kind of annoying (though
> the technical implementation of each method is different -
> they have a near-monopoly of the browser market anyway).
> Microsoft is certainly a big loser out of this - which is hard to
> lose sleep over in itself.
>
> In either case: if done properly, it could be a useful service,
> but it can easily degenerate into a form of tyopsquatting,
> Even worse, if if they allow ads targetted at specific
> domains - then it's essentially providing a second-tier
> registration service - and one that is essentially unregulated.
> It is this factor that I find most worrying.
>
> Kirk
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Disspain" <ceo&#167;auda.org.au>
> To: <dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 12:37 PM
> Subject: RE: [DNS] Change to operation of .com and .net DNS service
>
>
>> Bruce,
>>
>> Is this the same as Microsoft have already been doing for some time?
>>
>>
>> Chris Disspain
>> CEO - auDA
>> ceo&#167;auda.org.au
>> www.auda.org.au
>>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives =>
> http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/ Please do not retransmit articles on
> this list without permission of the author, further information at
> the above URL.