Slashdot Mirror
.museum TLDs are Live
GuNgA-DiN writes: "Several sites in .museum have now gone live: you can check out met.art.museum, stockholm.music.museum, and minnesota.science.museum, for instance. You can navigate the hierarchical structure of this TLD via index.museum, or go directly to an index page for a particular second level domain by going to that domain, e.g., art.museum.
Since the .museum TLD is still in its experimental phase, these domains haven't been delegated to their registrants yet, but resolve as CNAME records in the TLD root, pointing at the other domains each site already has. Thus, .museum addresses can currently only be used as additional addresses for sites that already have some other domain. MX records haven't yet been set up, so email to these domains won't yet work."
When did this happen? I didn't get thousands of spam mails about it.
I guess I'll have to get on the ball and register my .biz domains now before it's too late!
How completly usless.
:P)
Well, not entirely usless, although the choice of museum's as a class of institutions deserving a tld seems kind of random.
Otoh, I really like their index system, rather then having 2nd level domains up for grabs, although they seem to be allowing just about every catigory you could think of. I mean 'airguard.museum'? sci.museum and science.museum? and why does the louvre get a 2nd level? (those stuck up french
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Isn't "museum" a little too hard for the average net user to spell correctly?
This idea is only going to cause more problems...
In Britain some museums (eg the Natural History Museum) are counted as academic institutions so they appear in .ac.uk along with the universities. Strangely, the next-door Science Museum seems not to appreciate this and is redirecting from its old nmsi.ac.uk domain to something much less classy.
Darn, that Slashdot goatse indicator is spoiling the surprise of clicking on the links to find out what the domains actually are :-(.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
.mus should have been the extension of choice.
Ignoring how stupid those new TLDs .museum
.aero really are... technically the MX is
and
already there:
obelix:chris$ host -t mx met.art.museum
met.art.museum is a nickname for www.metmuseum.org
www.metmuseum.org is a nickname for metmuseum.org
metmuseum.org mail is handled (pri=10) by proxy00.metmuseum.org
But of course no one told the mailserver...
220 mail00.metmuseum.org InterScan VirusWall NT ESMTP 3.5 (build 1294) ready at Sat, 01 Dec 2001 08:20:17 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
MAIL FROM:
250 : Sender Ok
RCPT TO:
550 Relaying denied to met.art.museum
How many different extensions are we going to have? How many people are going to actually use them?
.com name. Forget about .biz, or .info, or .museum, or .rabid_attack_wombles.
I think that the 'dot com' culture is too firmly entrenched. Businesses are always going to want to try and get a
Taffyd.
i_hate_the.museum
boring.museum
or even(shudder)
goatse.museum
ewww!!!
Nice domain! :) I'd love to have one. What is the criteria of becoming a museum ;)
Well, back to reality. Every country has a lot of museums. Large cities may have several dousins. But they don't get sorted after country, and that may be troublesome.
On the other hand, stockholm.music.museum. They categorize the museums in which fields they belong to. And that makes it quite clear. You know you're at the right place when you are at einstein.technical.museum, rather when you're at theeinsteinmuseum.com.
My humble opinion at least :)
"The assembler gave birth to the compiler. Now there are ten thousand languages." - Tao of Programming
I live in St. Louis, Missouri and perused the index looking for local museums that were represented in the new TLD. The only one I found was magichouse.stlouis.museum. The Magic House (www.magichouse.com), to be fair, is a branch of the St. Louis Children's Museum. However, it is not quite what I would call a museum. Granted, it is a great place to take your kids on a rainy afternoon, or for a birthday party. But, there are many, many other museums in St. Louis that are more deserving -- particularly the St. Louis Art Museum in Forest Park, or the new Science Center (with the brand new planetarium), even the Bowling Hall of Fame deserves mentioning! These at least have something to do with the preservation of culture. Maybe I wouldn't be so disappointed if the Magic House didn't charge $5.50 per person (children under 2 free).
You don't follow a CNAME to a CNAME and then follow the MX. That's not how it works.
Of course, technically, you're not supposed to have a CNAME to a CNAME in the first place.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Well, the first test for a new TLD is usually this.
Was I suprised when I got the reply "There is no sex.museum". Then where are all those banners pointing at?
Make even shorter URLs - 8LN.org
RFC 1123 explicitly states that SMTP mail should be addressed to canonical name hosts. To be canonical, the DNS entry must be an A record or an MX record. CNAME records are not canonical and should not be mixed with MX records.
I'm still struggling to see why anyone thinks Museums are worthy of their own TLD. It makes sense to have TLDs for areas of the net/web that can be expected to contain massively varying content (commercial, organisations, countries etc) but museums??
:)
How many times have you actually wanted to find the website for a museum and not been able to do so using any search engine?
The only people NOT capable of using a search engine to find a website aren't going to think "oh, maybe i should try http://index.museum/". I wonder if there is really an alteria motive by the companies who are bidding to run these new TLDs as some way of getting a foot in the door and controlling a bit of the web... But maybe I'm just cynical
Someone should setup the dot.com.museum to display all the defunct dot bombs :)
Knunov
Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
Since the .museum TLD is still in its experimental phase, these domains haven't been delegated to their registrants yet, but resolve as CNAME records in the TLD root, pointing at the other domains each site already has.
Why should a .museum TLD have an A record anyway? I can see a CNAME, pointing to the real machine name, and I can see an MX, also pointing to the real machine name, but the whole concept of .museum is a web thing. What we need is a WWW record, for now CNAME will have to do.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Other than that, the .museum TLD is a little long for convenience.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
.. is this.
Where are cocacola.museum, nike.museum and disney.museum? It's not complete without them..
:)
pussy for the swedish crowd.. :) .. slicka.min.mus
220 mail00.metmuseum.org InterScan VirusWall NT ESMTP 3.5 (build 1294)
.exe entries. Why do they allow this crap on the internet?
BWHAHAHAHAHHAHA The "unstoppable" Windows NT Virus firewall.
No wonder why my httpd logs keep filling up with
And take note that the system's already sorta being treated like the old one:
carnegie.art.museum
carnegie.museum.of.art.museum
carnegiemuseum.art.museum
carnegiemuseum.of.art.museum
They need four different domains why?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I think this TLD is alot more useful than many people say it is. .info, .aero, and .biz all seem useless and trivial, but it appears like .museum can actually provide a good, up-to-date index of museums. I was disappointed my town's museum isn't online yet (http://indianapolis.museum), but it'll be interesting to see it once it goes up.
index.museum looks like it's been implemented pretty well so far, and it'd be even better with a search feature. I hope they continue to improve on it.
TLD's that are only potentially usable by at most, 10,000 or so different sites. Of course, with their policies, it's probably closer to 500 total.
index.museum links to alaska.museum. A click yields a listing (not a link) to pratt.alaska.museum. Typing! this into the browser yields a nonexistent link.
Thank you Esther Dyson, the one-woman argument against inherited wealth.
is the stupidest new domain yet.
If so... phooey.
Look at these racist bastards: African American Art Museum
Funny, that, considering CNAME means 'Canonical Name'
It is another attempt to impose power structures from the "real world" onto the net. When this idea was first discussed, many asked if the led museum would be included. I'm unsurprised to see that it's not. This is an attempt to draw a line in the sand between the 'respectable' who deserve the title of museum (the narrow closed circuit of fundraising dinners and inherited wealth) and the unwashed masses who might try to extend the idea of museum to something internet-centric.
The fact that this is implemented only as CNAMEs emphasizes that ICANN has polluted the top level namespace with sheer gimmickry. These bastions of privilege have no intention of surrendering their existing domains.
Instead of an orderly development of tld space based on compact representation for the most common areas, we are getting an expression of privilege and influence extended into the net. The nobles are riding across the peasant's fields, hunting the fox.
The real tragedy is that we have been unable to shake off ICANN. This utterly corrupt, elitist and short-sighted clique has no feeling for the natural flavor and development of the net. And yet the only thing which empowers ICANN is that we use the root name servers they recommend. Every attempt to build an alternate root seems to have fizzled, because the center of gravity remains with ICANN.
Until we find a way to migrate from ICANN-dependence, we can expect a continuing series of insults and abuses from them.
What, now sex.museum yet?
The people in Amsterdam are going to be pissed off...
Sig this.
Apparently your code is just as short sighted as your commentary. Good luck with those regexps. (but why are you collecting people's email addresses in the first place??)
I think it would be spiffy if I could find the nearest Radio Shack around (if, say, I were new to my area) with a system like this. I could try radioshack.dallas.tx.us.com, and instantly see a site on the locations in Dallas. But--What if there were no Radio Shacks in Dallas? Ya don't suppose I could hit radioshack.index.tx.us.com, and I'd instantly see an index of all Radio Shack locations in Texas?
Sorry. Just more speculation from yet another convenience nut.
-
And the Angel said unto me, "These are the cries of the carrots! The cries of the carrots!"
Funny, that, considering CNAME means 'Canonical Name'
The difference is that CNAME maps from non-canonical names to canonical names. Correct?
CNAMEs should not point to other CNAMEs (only to A records) to avoid the possibility of infinite recursion.
Will I retire or break 10K?
(but why are you collecting people's email addresses in the first place??)
Before you ass-u-me grandparent collects e-mail addresses to build a spam list, realize that many web services (such as Slashcode-based sites) get users' addresses so the service can send the user an initial password. It's faster to check "does this look like a valid hostname?" than to MX lookup the address the user provided.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Pr0n.museum, goatse.cx.museum, etc
-Billco, Fnarg.com
If other international organizations had petitioned for their own TLD.
.museum domain. But what if other organizational bodies had been as clever as ICOM? What if there had been petitions for .aquarium, .zoo, .observatory, etc.?
.aero would also have been rejected if there were applications for .bank, .law, .stock-market, etc., etc.
The International Council of Museums is the driving force behind the creation of the
If a lot of petitions for TLDs were submitted to partition the Internet into private or semi-private areas for "worthy" institutions and/or causes, I think then that the ICANN would have realized how foolish it would be to create separate and unequal TLDs.
ICANN only approved this because only a handfull of comunities asked for private space.
- national.museum.of.women.in.the.arts.art.museum
- nationalmuseumofwomeninthearts.art.museum
- theclevelandmuseumofarts.art.museum (museum o farts?)
- ici.exhibitions.nyc.contemporary.art.museum
- (my favorite) fundacio.pilar.i.joan.miro.mallorca.art.museum
All are registered, but none are used. Thank you, InterNIC.For more information, click here.
And A means address, but that doesn't mean www.yahoo.com is an address. And NS means nameserver, but that doesn't mean yahoo.com is a nameserver. Canonical name refers to the part on the right side of the statement, not on the left. "www.yahoo.com CNAME yahoo.com" would read "yahoo.com is the canonical name of www.yahoo.com".
Most of the problems on the Internet are due to trademark and domain name conflicts.
Not surprising really - as virtually every word is trademarked - Alpha to Zeta or Aardvark to Zulu - MOST many times over.
I have been communicating with US and UK authorities about this.
Would it surprise you to learn, that they know the solution to these difficulties - yet hide it from you?
Like I say, MOST trademarks share the same words or initials with many others in a different business and/or country.
For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks in the USA alone.
Despite this, each domain could be made unique and totally distinctive - as trademarks are required to be, by trademark law.
When authorities could put trademark identity beyond shadow of doubt, they either are devoid of intelligence or corrupt.
Given their response - I have come to logical conclusion that they are corrupt.
Perhaps you would be interested to hear, that the solution was ratified by honest lawyers and a panellist judge of the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.org).
I have WIPO.org.uk to broadcast the facts. As the United Nations WIPO.org take away similar named domains, do you not find that even slightly newsworthy?
I also have SWIPO.org - redirected to UN WIPO.org, to show disdain.
Please visit WIPO.org.uk to see the simple solution, to avoid 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and stop people 'passing off'.
The index.museum page links to each of the subcategories. Some of the links within the subcategories are active, some are not. It seems that the addresses without active links don't work anyway.
It's likely that more and more of the links will be made to work as the addresses become functional.
----------
Floccinaucinihilipilification - the action or habit of judging something to be worthless
that's a damn good question!
The whole history of computers and technology in general has concentrated around making a more efficient and logical system. Why then .museum? At least IMHO, I think a .ref (for "reference") TLD would have been far more useful. Museum sites, as well as libraries, search engines, research facilities, and all sorts of other topics could be covered under it. As for the rest of them, ICAAN seriously needs to rethink how their decisions are going to affect the future of the Internet.
Unlike .info and .biz. I've tried hundreds of company names with .biz on the end. None work. Where's microsoft.biz? Where's insurance.info?
.biz or .info. Useless. But at least this .museum TLD is being used.
No-one's using
mogorific carpentry experiments
.int (which was created fairly casually, according to this story) is still smaller than .museum, and .int has a 13-year head start.
.mil seems to be pretty small, too.
Proud to be / Smiley-free / Since Nineteen / Ninety-Three
Hey, on the same day all this .museum stuff got announced, all museums in the UK became free entry. Does this mean the web sites won't get used quite so much - people might even leave their armchairs and visit them properly.
Yes... I understand this.
Just pointing out that it's confusing for some.
I'm the admin for the franklin institute (www.fi.edu and now franklininstitute.science.museum). The funny part is, I have not recieved any instructions on how to use this new domain name!
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
.museum OTOH is good, especially the index. These specific TLDs are a great way to keep out the rifraf, by that I mean porn sites etc. Someone was complaining that their favorite museum isn't included. I see this as a misuse of power. If it fits in the category of museum then it should be in there, even if it is under internet.museum or computers.museum (alternative.museum ?).
These specific TLDs are sort of like a web within a web. They should have a good index.tld to keep things consistent and they should use categories within them as well (science.museum) if useful. They are like an umbrella web site or like Google's directory.
I have no problems at all with them being CNAMEs to start off with but, as it becomes wider known, the old address should become the CNAME for a while then disappear. A site could belong to more than one specific TLD (one A and the rest CNAME) eg. smithsonian.museum and smithsonian.ref (reference).
These could make the web much easier to traverse.
Summary: museum = good, biz = bad
Well, the MX is running NT. I'm not surprised by any ns misconfiguration.
Paul Anderson
"I drank WHAT?!" -- Socrates
is .movie
.movie to fix all that.
Every new movie has a website, and most have to tack "movie" on the end of the title. (ie: behindenemylinesmovie.com - I think that's an example) We just need
No sig for you.
And the question is...
"What was the most useless development in computers in the year 2000?"
Correct!
I'd like "Stupid Shit" for $500, Alex.
I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
The cowards in authority have no honour. They have run out of EXCUSES, and will no longer answer me.
.REG - so they can claim world rights to words.
Trademarks are to identify source - not claim world rights to the word.
That is why they do not want
EOM
- regexp (does it have the correct form)
- mx look up for the host part (can we send mail there)
- connect to the returned mail servers (do the mail servers actually exist)
- try validating the address with the mail server (is not always correct)
This way you don't have to worry about new TLDs. There are many sources for a decent #1, if you just can't find any that work for you, go by the SMTP RFC. Just face it, your email validation script is the work of an amateur.
Are there really that many museums around, that they deserve their own TLD? What's next, .church, .train and .pub? I don't mean to troll about it, but if it weren't for the domain-name hypes, we'd manage with
.NET(works)
.ORG(anisations)
.COM(mercial)
.EDU(cational)
Since the .museum TLD is still in its experimental phase, these domains haven't been delegated to their registrants yet, but resolve as CNAME records in the TLD root, pointing at the other domains each site already has.
Thus, .museum addresses can currently only be used as additional addresses for sites that already have some other domain. MX records haven't yet been set up, so email to these domains won't yet work
So when you say ".museum TLDs are live", what exactly does that mean? "Live, unless you want to do anything other than point a CNAME at your website"? That doesn't seem very "live" to me. Another half-arsed botched TLD job. *sigh*.
I bet the .museum payment system is "live".
Stuii!
The MX is not what's misconfigured, the CNAME is (with the technicality that CNAMEs shouldn't point to CNAMEs, one that is very commonly ignored). As for the MX, I bet mail to that stupid .museum address is supposed to bounce.
Why do you think running NT makes it more likely to misconfigure? I would bet it makes it less likely, since Microsoft makes it much simpler to configure.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
- connect to the returned mail servers (do the mail servers actually exist)
Two problems:- try validating the address with the mail server (is not always correct)
Will I retire or break 10K?
There is a general perception that MS products are easy to configure. They aren't, they require no less expertise to operate properly than UNIX, probably more.
The issue is that because people THINK it's easy, they put any old dunce on the job and don't care. Well, the guy ends up not knowing anything about stuff like CNAMES and MXs, and software can only be just so intelligent. As a result, you end up with some terribly sloppy administration.
With UNIX and friends, however, you have the OPPOSITE perception. One that it is hard and takes someone who really knows what he's the doing. The truth, of course, is that system administration is a skilled trade like any other - it requires a great deal of expertise to be performed effectively. This is not burger-flipping, this is telecommunications infrastructure maintenance. As a result of the perception, effort is put towards finding a competent sysadmin because they know that an MCSE just isn't going to cut it.
And that is why I expect most Windows systems to be poorly adminned.
Paul Anderson
"I drank WHAT?!" -- Socrates
There is a general perception that MS products are easy to configure. They aren't, they require no less expertise to operate properly than UNIX, probably more.
Having used Microsoft's DNS server, and having had semi-technical friends use Microsoft's DNS server, I whole-heartedly disagree with you. MS products, in general, are easier to configure.
I'm not saying that Microsoft's DNS server can be used without a basic knowledge of DNS, but once you have that basic knowledge, choosing from "A, CNAME, MX, etc." is much easier (less chance for error) than typing it in. Knowing that MX takes an extra argument because the GUI will not let you not set it (in fact, I believe it defaults to the most common value) is much simpler than having to remember to type it in. I know a hell of a lot about DNS, but I can't tell you how many times I've forgotten to enter the MX priority. And Bind will just silently fail, maybe putting something in your syslog, and you'll wonder 2 days later why you haven't been getting any spam.
Sure, there are alternatives to bind and bind configure files, but they generally involve installation of new software, which in and of itself is more difficult than with Windows.
With UNIX and friends, however, you have the OPPOSITE perception. One that it is hard and takes someone who really knows what he's the doing. The truth, of course, is that system administration is a skilled trade like any other - it requires a great deal of expertise to be performed effectively. This is not burger-flipping, this is telecommunications infrastructure maintenance. As a result of the perception, effort is put towards finding a competent sysadmin because they know that an MCSE just isn't going to cut it.
You are certainly right that a Microsoft admin still needs to know what s/he's doing, but I personally have never met a manager that didn't know that. In fact, at my last job the NT admin was probably the smartest and most capable person on the team (in a mixed NT/unix environment). Of course, he wasn't an MCSE, and I'm sure that he is the exception, as opposed to the rule, but I really don't think it's as bad as you're making it out to be.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?