Slashdot Mirror
ICANN Gives VeriSign 36 Hours to Pull Sitefinder
Froomkin writes "ICANN this morning announced that it sent VeriSign an ultimatum: pull sitefinder by tomorrow evening or we'll sue. Details and links to discussion of the contractual and legal issues in ICANN Throws Down the Gauntlet to VeriSign on Sitefinder at ICANNWatch." Update: 10/03 19:29 GMT by M : Verisign blinked.
Go ICANN? Wow, now I am really confused... who are the good guys again?
It's good to know that ICANN has at least a little backbone left. I for one welcome our ICANN overlords
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
My name is ICCANa MOntoya, you killa my DNS, prepare to die!
I think ICANN should basically tell VeriSign, "If you pull this crap again you're through." VeriSign doesn't deserve to be in the position they are in, IMO. This pretty much proves it.
What will happen when VeriSign doesn't do anything tomorrow? Is this just another "scare tactic"?
Just when you make it idiotproof, some idiot builds a better idiot.
...ICANNwatchwatch
What if Verisign ignores this just like they ignored everything else? They are in a position to seariously mess up the DNS system.
X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
Do you ever visit a domain with .com or .net TLD? If so then you use Verisign yourself. You're relying on the root DNS servers that they manage.
3 October 2003
.com and .net Top Level Domains announced by VeriSign on 15 September 2003, and in response to your letter of 21 September 2003. These changes involved the introduction (for the first time in the .com and .net domains) of a so-called "wildcard" mechanism that changes the expected error response for Internet traffic that would otherwise have resulted in a "no domain" response, and redirects that traffic to a VeriSign-operated webpage with links to alternative choices and to a search engine.
.com and .net, until more information could be gathered on the impact of these changes. On 21 September 2003, VeriSign refused to honor that request. In the time since then, ICANN has had further opportunity to consider the technical and practical consequences of these changes, and to evaluate whether these unilateral actions by VeriSign were consistent with its contractual obligations to ICANN.
.com and .net domains. Under these circumstances, the only prudent course of action consistent with ICANN's coordination mission is to insist that VeriSign suspend these changes pending further evaluation and study, including (but certainly not limited to) the public meeting already scheduled by ICANN's Security and Stability Advisory Committee on 7 October in Washington, D.C.
.com and .net registry agreements between ICANN and VeriSign leads us to the conclusion that VeriSign's unilateral and unannounced changes to the operation of the .com and .net Top Level Domains are not consistent with material provisions of both agreements. These inconsistencies include violation of the Code of Conduct and equal access provisions, failure to comply with the obligation to act as a neutral registry service provider, failure to comply with the Registry Registrar Protocol, failure to comply with domain registration provisions, and provision of an unauthorized Registry Service. These inconsistencies with VeriSign's obligations under the .com and .net registry agreements are additional reasons why the changes in question must be suspended pending further evaluation and discussion between ICANN and VeriSign.
.com and .net domains to their state before the 15 September changes, pending further technical, operational and legal evaluation. A failure to comply with this demand will require ICANN
Via E-mail and U.S. Mail
Russell Lewis
Executive Vice President, General Manager
VeriSign Naming and Directory Services
21345 Ridgetop Circle LS2-3-2
Dulles, VA 20166-6503
Re: Deployment of SiteFinder Service
Dear Rusty:
This letter is further to the advisory posted by ICANN on 19 September 2003 regarding the changes to the operation of the
Because of numerous indications that these unannounced changes have had very significant impacts on a wide range of Internet users and applications, ICANN on 19 September 2003 asked VeriSign to voluntarily suspend these changes, and return to the previous behavior of
Based on the information currently available to us, it appears that these changes have had a substantial adverse effect on the core operation of the DNS, on the stability of the Internet, and on the relevant domains, and may have additional adverse effects in the future. These effects appear to be significant, including effects on web browsing, certain email services and applications, sequenced lookup services and a pervasive problem of incompatibility with other established protocols. In addition, the responses of various persons and entities to the changes made by VeriSign may themselves adversely affect the continued effective functioning of the Internet, the DNS and the
In addition, our review of the
Given these conclusions, please consider this a formal demand to return the operation of the
Bel, the mostly sane.. "Of course I can't see anything! I'm standing on the shoulders of idiots." -- Me
I'd be interested to see what those obligations were. If it is as bad as that sounds, I wonder if VeriSign could lose their Registrar priviledges as a result. This could have huge implications, and could help small(er) registrars get a leg up (finally) in the .com and .net domains. I guess only time will tell.
today is spelling optional day.
You have 36 hours to pull sitefinder or we will bring in the Mallard Ducks.
...my name is ICCANa SUEya, you killa my DNS, prepare to die penniless!
Geek used to be a four letter word. Now it's a six-figure one.
Finally, the ICANN does something worthwhile!
ok, their practices suck, their infrastructure rocks. I meant for registration of TLDs, not for dns.
alias dir='rm -rf
Well.. Sitefinder is bad_thing(tm).. But, somehow, I am against finding solution with involving word 'sue, lawers' etc. World we live in is not perfect - make things completely decentralized - chaos. Centralized - tyrany.. Rant rant rant...
Dephine URL
they haven't complied yet. I still get that damn sitefinder page.
Left 4 Dead Gaming Group - http://www.l4dgg.com
So, basically, if I read this right
ICANN doesn't per se have a problem with the Sitefinder service, but rather, the manner in which VeriSign implemented it?
Ugh.
So basically, they're asking VeriSign to stop until they can take a look at it, give it a green light, and rubber-stamp it
Umm... The organization that contracted out the management of the
Finally do something useful besides irritating the public for a change
.
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
ICANN shouldn't have to sue anyone over a technical aspect of the Internet. They should have the tools to simply tell Verisign to do it and have it done quickly. And they should also have the means to simply cut Verisign out of the loop if push comes to shove (and let Verisign sue if they are unhappy).
Do we hate icann on fridays? :-)
I always thought we we supposed to hate icann, but this story leaves me with such mixed emotions. Can I hate verisign and icann today?
Some one tell me how to feel please.
Wang 33
"Your breath smells like dead bunnies"
PAGERANK++ Robsell.com
I do, because when I signed up it was 'Network Solutions' and back then it was a breeze doing business with that company. Now, though, is a different story. I get spammed by them, I get the run-around if I want to tranfer my domain name, and I now have a horrible customer web interface I *have* to use since calling them on the phone gives me an unintelligent and impatient customer service. I can't risk losing the domain name because of some bureaucratic "limbo" caused by Verisign's inability to do their job. I get to try to transfer my domain to another registrar this december. Let's hope I get lucky and it happens smoothly.
Do I use them? Yes, unfortunately I do at the moment.
What will happen when VeriSign doesn't do anything tomorrow?
SCO will pull their UNIX licenses.
Nasdaq likes them.
BOO! TERRO
Notice: Youre IP number is being logged. Be careful of what you write.
Failure to comply with this demand by that time will leave ICANN with no choice but to seek promptly to enforce VeriSign's contractual obligations.
/theirass/head, then perhaps a class action suit of all those whose mail-servers are being bogged by the new "service" should be put into effect?
What are these obligations, and what exactly got into VeriScam's mind that they could overlook these, and the general obligations to their customers (mainly, those on the internet, and those running servers that depend on the service in particular).
We have here a service which has, to some extend, broken how many of the tried-and-true mechanisms work. While it might be true that there are no RFC's to cover this, when something has been function for a long duration and a change, in effects, damages that functionality, I think there are greater considerations. If VeriSign doesn't rm
I think I want to cry... a tear in my beer in cheer! Hurrah! Do you think anyone is upset that the letter doesn't validate? ;-) I guess it's difficult to follow every every standard when your in a rush to publish.
Wow! This is almost like that gunfight between the Earps and the Clantons at the OK Corral.
Pass the popcorn!
!@#$% whole-grain cereal. When I want fiber, I eat some wicker furniture. - G. Carlin
VeriSlime t-shirt "No Values to Trust"
VeriSlime t-shirt "The Abuse of Trust"
SPF support for most open source mail servers can be found at libspf2.
The amazing thing to me was that they went through a big development effort and believed that they were going to be allowed to do it. They really have lost their marbles if they think that their contract allows them to do this type of stuff.
So what exactly is ICANN going to do if they do not comply? The threat of legal action doesn't mean too much, as it can take years to resolve and based on the legal system's understanding of current technology, the outcome is completely up in the air.
Could ICANN actually transfer everything to another company? How long would this take? Is anybody set up to handle this? Think of all the little registrars which exist today, would this be a huge job?
Watch Verisign emerge victorious.
I don't understand your gripe with the sitefinder either. So you type in a wrong URL and end up on a strange site. What's new?
The new behavior doesn't really bug me. Actually, having similarly spelled sites suggested looks handy for when you mistype.
I suppose if your software counted on receiving domain not found errors to function properly it could be a real problem.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
As much as I want them to stop, this response makes a lot of sense, unfortunately: "So the key question now is, 'what will Verisign do?'... My gut reaction is to guess that they're not going to comply. Why should they? They're making mumble-mumble dollars per day on this 'feature,' which is multiples of what it will cost them to fight ICANN's demand, even if it goes to court. Every day that they drag it out is money in the bank... I predict that Verisign will very politely decline ICANN's "request," and state that the issue requires more study before coming to a conclusion. Much like any controversial aspect of ICANN's operation needs 'more study' before moving forward. It's worked in the past; I suspect it'll work now."
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
ICANN will commence legal action and allow the courts to decide. Unfortunately, this could be another long, drawn out, expensive process where we don't see any real action for some time.
"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." - Jack Nicholson
It's been up for long enough. People have already coded the workarounds for it. Let Verisign get away with this.
SCO today acquired Verisign Corporation. SCO CEO Darl McBride said of the acquisition; "We saw a real opportunity for litigation when ICAAN announced they might sue. We feel it would be irresponsible to our investors to pass up such an opportunity and we bought them out."
SCO is presently awaiting ICAAN's law suit at which time it plans to file massive countersuits. Additionally, SCO has begun sending invoices to internet users for the use of thier "Patented DNS system". SCO representatives said the planed to mail the first million invoices on Monday and that the invoices were for ammounts of $699 to $699,000,000.
In other news SCO stock(SCOX) soared on the announcement of the Verisign acquisition.
No, I don't have a solution. Just pointing out that this is just a symptom of a larger problem.
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
I'm not sure that your comments are accurate.
While it may be unfair on a number of levels to redirect nonexistant domains, I'm not so sure that it's against the law. A company like Verisign is in control of something that affects a large number of people, which can potentially be used for profitable purposes. Verisign (AFIAK) is still one of the most expensive registrars and is probably looking for other sources of income. Since they control a good chunk of the internet's name resolution, I think this is still within their legal rights. Anyone else with more credibility is welcome to correct me here if I'm wrong.
In terms of general fairness, you're absolutely correct -- benefiting from others' misfortune, be it a mistyped URL or something more serious, is hardly fair. Good luck, ICANN.
Not in the long run since September 15th when they implemented this crap.
Look here.
Chris Benard
www.talkingtoad.com
How will I ever be able to find my sites now?
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
When you say HTTP/302, you're saying the resource they're looking for exists somewhere else, in this case sitefinder.verisign.com. That is a lie. It is a gigantic, automated lie perpetrated automatically on the entire world. It's a class action suit waiting to happen.
LIARS
It's fraud.
a two or three week turn around? Hell I wish I could respond to my customers' complaints/troubles in that time frame...I'd have more time to play each day!
"Just Smile and Nod." --Huck
I went to Verisign's terms of use page http://sitefinder.verisign.com/terms.jsp and there is not agree or disagree button. There must be a way to disagree and once disagreed Verisign mustn't take us to their search page. However, even prior to the question of agree-disagree comes the fact that Verisign has given us opt-in by default. That is, anyone who mistypes a URL agrees to be taken to their page. This is another version of spam. Block them!
"It takes a long time to teach the judges, legislators, and public to understand technology. Right now, they're getting a strong dose of "education" on the Internet's threats and harms, and not hearing so much about its potential. Shouts of "piracy" often outweigh consideration of how we might communicate with more open media formats, but judges like Stephen Wilson in the Grokster case are starting to listen through the shouting. We're encouraging more people to think about how the law shapes technological innovation, how the technology itself can foster creativity, and then to do something about it to advance the public interest."--
"The stability of the large world house which is ours will involve a revolution of values to accompany the scientific and freedom revolutions engulfing the earth. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing"-oriented society to a "person"-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism and militarism are incapable of being conquered. A civilization can flounder as readily in the face of moral and spiritual bankruptcy as it can through financial bankruptcy."
STILL, the ONLY 'controversy' about the gpl, gnu/linux, etc..., is coming from the phonIE payper liesense softwar gangster stock markup FraUD execrable/walking dead contingent.
hi whats ur naem
Look at http://www.ttttttttttttjljlkjljljljlkjkttttttttt.m useum/ or any other random .museum link.
Same shit, other provider?
Is verisign responsible for that also?
http://www.millnet.se/ GO/U d- s+:+ a C++ UL++++ P- L+++ E W+++ N+ w++ M-- PE+ t+ X++
Verisign received trusteeship of the COM and NET TLDs by ICANN, the government and the rest of the Internet standards bodies. They are free to promote the domains but are obligated to act in a neutral fashion and keep the DNS running. They are required to act as a neutral third-party with regard to providing a network service much in the same way it did when DNS was run as a government funded, non-profit organization (InterNIC).
ICANN's pissed and rightly so. The average Internet user has no idea how the net really works with regard to DNS. To them, www.google.com is the Internet. To the techies, we know the names are just thin veneers over the IP addresses that really control and make things happen. Until this affects the average user, only the geeks and techies of the world will care about this.
Verisign has gone and broken THE CORE PROTOCOL of what makes the Internet work! Without DNS, we would have to use and memorize IP addresses. DNS is supposed to work by returned an answer as to whether or not a name is mapped to an IP address and provide that address.
By building SiteFinder, they have waived their right as a neutral third party and are now trying to co-opt the largest domain registries in the world for their own personal profit and use. In doing so, they have also broken the software contract between DNS and its users. They've changed the interface that people expect to work a certain and broken or severely damaged the functionality of software around the world. When mail servers can't figure out if an e-mail is forged or not, it's only going to be a matter of time before the spammers clue in and increase bandwidth usage across the board until things change.
What Verisign fails to acknowledge is that registry is not theirs to do that with. It was paid for by taxpayer dollars and grants over many years from countless communities and can be considered a public utility. There cannot be preferential treatment in this. Or they can claim that the COM/NET TLDs are their intellectual property and they can do with it as they please. They want to do that? Fine, they can push for a new TLD to be added to the hierarchy for private use which they can manage. Turn over COM/NET to a neutral non-profit and let them run it as a public trust.
I would rather get an error returned that it doesn't exist. Imagine an application watching a few websites by DNS. If one returns an error, your exception handler (because you're a good programmer) catches it, and alerts whomever needs to be. Now, instead of returning an error, your code thinks everything is ok because it actually hit a valid site... sitefinder.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Heh,
/spam) etc..)
It's even worse in ITU's World Summit on Information Society. The goverments are really fighting against each other on the governance of Internet and it's possible that it will be one of the topics, which will destroy the whole process (the funding for developing countries is still the best bet).
Register has a nice story about the Prepcom III, which ended up being a (almost) total distaster. (Anyway it was funny to participate and see f.ex. how the highly paid diplomats argue how spam should be spelled (SPAM
V.
I see just random noise in that chart. The value oscillates between 12-16 which is insignificant to the average which is still well above their 1 year running.
BOO! TERRO
See how their "trust" campain would work then...
For us carnivores, "Sucking the marrow out of life" isn't a transcendentalist philosophy but a practical instruction.
Verisign should have its right to manage the .com, .net and .org TLDs revoked permanently. No ands, ifs or buts. They have stepped over the line. They have had the opportunity to down sitefinder weeks ago and they thumbed their nose at all of us.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Personally I think ICANN and Verisign both suck. We need a distributed naming service. Or perhaps /. could create a single .slashdot root server and we could all just point our DNS servers at it (and only at it.)
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
In other words, a tool that is toolier than most tools. That doesn't mean you're not a tool for even checking to see that it validates.
Anyway... TGIF, right?
Regards,
Hank Kingsley
How can the first post be redundant?
My future's determined by Thieves, thugs, and vermin -- The Offspring
Network solutions shouldn't have been allowed to get into any business besides selling domain names and providing DNS. Anything else (like selling ads on their sitefinder) and there is a risk they will do something to DNS to promote their other products rather than improve usability (as they did). They shouldn't even be allowed to send unlimited e-mails to domain name owners.
TLD registrars and DNS providers should be small companies, run by people who are content to do a job and make a small profit, but not have unlimited freedom/growth potential of a private company that doesn't provide any exclusive service to the public.
I hope ICANN moves in that direction right away and not even bother with separate lawsuits for various small points.
Check it out!! Got an NXDOMAIN and a good old browser pop-up:
www.fhaoiheoihfj.com could not be found. Please check the name and try again.
ICANN vs. Verisign? With any luck they'll annihilate each other, I hate them both so....
-R
Just 2 days after I finally get Cox Communications to install the DNS patch...
Couldn't ICANN have let me stay a hero for just a few more days?
a non biased org needs to make a simple webpage help for people that misspell a website's URL that has links to a few major search engines just as google, Altavista, etc and\or using a whois engine offer suggestions for correct URLs and adult advisories to protect children and those with a preference to not view porn & website with questionable adult content...
something that does not drag users in to any marketing kludge/hype- NO M$N, NO Netscape/AOL, just KISS (keep it simple stupid)...
Even if others could, it would be still against the law because its not right.
Ahh, to see the world through the eyes of a child...
There are many services and protocols on the Internet that have nothing to do with web browsing. Adding wildcards screws up the DNS for all services and protocols, not just http and smtp.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
What happens when ICANN fully realizes this power and makes changes to the obligated behavior of TLDs and uses their power to force change that may not be in the best interest of everyone concerned (read: ISPs and end users).
Of all the lawsuits flying around this year, this one is actually valid and should occur with extreme prejudice.
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
If Verisign still refuses to comply, ICANN can always contact the Department of Asskick...
they did lose the .org management already. It's just .com and .net now.
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
Read the last paragraph of the ICANN advisory-- was this VeriSign's actual intent? Or did they really think that their wildcarding trick is a good idea?
We talked about the lawsuit here and it's rather similar.
Review: Zurakov filed a class action suit against register.com because he registered a domain and, while he was building it, his domain pointed to a register.com "coming soon" page that had links to services and so on. The argument: they were using his domain to profit.
In Verisign's case, I suppose they could argue that the sites belong to no one, but haven't we seen court precedence against this sort of thing?
The two cases have interesting parallels, IMO.
IANAL. Not FDIC Insured.
best web host ever
Pass me the popcorn, as we see ICANN tumble to its much deserved end.
I mean, you don't really think verisign will do much more than tell them to shove it, do you? What will ICANN do then? Come down on verisign with all its awesome power and might? Uh, yes, all of it. Oh, so scared.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Since when did government organizations start enforcing things in civil court, anyways?
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Verisign announced in another dispute a few years back that the database (the registry) was their "work product" and therefore their property.
If I design a website on contract for somebody, the website is *not* then my work product. That's just completely backwards of how things work. I seem to recall Verisign more or less being allowed to get away with the claim that time. They're still running things aren't they?
This is all par for the course for them. They've long since proven that they aren't trustworthy and should've gotten the boot long ago.
Asking any for-profit organism to function in a neutral capacity while having monopoly control of a major resource is a joke. Give the .com and .net to a non-profit organization to run. It won't be necessarily efficient and it will be political, but... isn't that pretty much what we've got now except that currently it's also a carnivore?
At least make it a vegetarian.
Quoth he
"It's all academic anyway..."
ICANN grows a pair
My amazing wife - Artist, Author, Philosopher - Laurie M
To paraphrase a little
...
Dear Rusty,
Blah blah blah
Do it or it your ass!
Best Regards
Paul
It's like watching two Englishmen having a civilized cup of tea while trading insults.
Life is like a web application. Sometime you need cookies just to get by.
--
Simon
Can't ICANN just revoke Verisign's registrar accredidation and stop them from ever being able to do this again ?
Due to excessive bad posting from this IP or Subnet, comment posting has temporarily been disabled. If it's you, consider this a chance to sit in the timeout corner. If it's someone else, this is a chance to hunt them down. If you think this is unfair, please email moderation@slashdot.org with your MD5'd IPID and SubnetID, which are "ba36ec8e74111416671a0a04a7be8270" and "e210a436fac14b4a7e9ee8e0f49b61ab" and (optionally, but preferably) your IP number "192.168.1.15" and your username "Iphtashu Fitz".
Mallard Ducks.
Wow, that's funny.
Allow me to demonstrate how funny the template "You have X hours to do Y or we'll bring in Z, where X is an integer, Y is a verb, and Z is a random animal" is:
You have 28 hours to give me a billion dollars or we'll bring in the Honey Badgers.
Oh wait, nevermind. That shit isn't even remotely humorous. -1 Overrated.
Never thought I'd hear ICANN write "there must be a timely, transparent and predictable process".
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
Are you ICANN or ICANN'T?
How could the first post in a thread be modded as redundant?
Act fact though, bet they won't last long...
Mod parent up to +10 Insighfull please.
Perhapse they can use all the bounces to invalidate addresses from address lists, then sell the remaining addresses as pre-filtered lists at a higher premium?
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Verisign sucks. Does anyone use them anymore?
.com registry service? True, we do use them for resolving other peoples domains, but I haven't paid them anything in years. Verisign as a registry does suck. I'd mod the parent up as informative. dang, slashdot
this isn't a troll. It's true. How many people have switched to dotster, or another
640YB ought to be enough for anybody.
If you type in a *.org domain name wrong, Sitefinder will only suggest a *.com site in its list of suggested sites. If you aren't aware of this, it makes you think there is no such .org domain name.
And the other day, when www.kungfucinema.com went off line for a day or so, sitefinder suggested a couple of domains that sounded like what I was looking for, but www.kungfucinema.com was not in the list of suggestions at all. I tell you, for a while there I thought they had let the domain name expire and the site was just plain gone. It turns out their server just tanked and sitefiner is a piece of crap that makes you think there is no such domain name since it didn't suggest what you were looking for.
Usurper_ii
Ron Paul
Am I the only person that thinks that messages like this are some form of steganography?
StoneCypher is Full of BS
You are SUPPOSED to be able to count on getting "DOMAIN NOT FOUND" errors.... DNS isn't google.. it's a precise, distributed database, that has served us well so far.
I have been hit by this problem already, where typos went unnoticed in scripts because a connection was made, and html returned.
I've had mail problems as well, where secondary MX was never tried, because of verisign's new trick.
It's handy for when you mistype.. unfortuntaely, looking up web pages is just one of many uses for the DNS.... and not at all what it was intended for.
I have it on good authority that VeriSign will comply with the request. Don't ask me how because I can't say. Don't believe me, wait 24 hours.
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
Problem is, the only thing ICANN can do about it besides sue is pull the tld out of the root-- then they might as well look for new jobs...
I personally gave them 24 hrs from the time of turning it on. No, I won't make any difference in their bottom line -- but if more people did what I've already done...
.COM to .US (where we are :). Traffic for .COM will be accepted until they expire (next year) and in the mean time Verisign will get no more $$$ from me. Except perhaps for a couple of the domains which I think have a good chance for going for decent $$$ in a sale of them. Otherwise why bother with Verisign anymore?
Within 24hrs I flipped _all_ the domains in my control from
Useless company.
Yes.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
Everyone should transfer their registrations NOW. It's easy and you are making a stand that might actually be noticed. At least you won't be sending any more dollars to a corrupt company that doesn't give a rip about Internet standards.
I read the article and it's 36 DAYS, not hours. Big difference.
I only want $1 per screwed up search. So far, that'd be about $100.
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
VeriSign already screwed up under the contracts. ICANN should jerk their ticket. can 'em. shut the sumbucks down. remove the addressing of those top level domain servers in the other domain servers of da ISH and zero out VeriSign. sue 'em. drop 'em from the mailing list. gutshoot their dog. follow their kids to school in a dark-windowed van.
get the picture?
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
If someone cracked into www.sfdjfkdjkasjfd.com? Would Verisign have a case against the cracker, since they redirected that nonexistent site to themselves voluntarily?
I for one will enjoy looking into updates on this. I loved watching the Red hat vs Sco battle(which is still on going) I will enjoy watching ICANN and Verisign duke it out. Personally I hopw ICANN wins and gets rid of this verisign abuse of power.
-Certified TechnoWeinie
It won't work if VeriSign is stripped of the Registrar title, and their contract is torn up. They will be completely illegitimate, and the root servers will be instructed to ignore VeriSign. VeriSign has only one choice if they wish to continue to be a Registrar, and that is to comply with ICANN. Personally, I'd like to see them not comply, and watch them get flushed down the proverbial internet toilet. Good riddance, I say.
It would be interesting to find out just how deep in this mess Yahoo / Overture is....
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
Three companies, three options. Try and match them up...
.
.
.
Head exploded yet?
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
These inconsistencies include violation of the Code of Conduct and equal access provisions, failure to comply with the obligation to act as a neutral registry service provider, failure to comply with the Registry Registrar Protocol, failure to comply with domain registration provisions, and provision of an unauthorized Registry Service.
I'm not sure why ICANN threw this all in there. Most of it won't stick. The Code of Conduct (specifically the equal access provisions) say nothing about anything like this. They have to do with VeriSign registry not showing preferential treatment to any registrar. And SiteFinder doesn't break this at all. There are no "Do you want to register this domain?" links, especially not to Network Solutions. Now I'm sure that NSI could buy advertising on SiteFinder to do this, but so could any other registrar. VeriSign knows all about the potential conflicts of interest, and goes out of their way to make sure they don't show NSI preferential treatment.
Additionally, the stuff about not complying with the RRP and the domain registration provisions is BS as well. What VeriSign did doesn't affect the RRP at all, nor does it screw with the domain registration system. All it does is provide an answer for domains that don't exist. About the only thing that might stick is the part about providing an unauthorized Registry Service. However, I don't see anything in the agreements that prohibits VeriSign from providing new services. About the only thing they have to give notice for is changes to the RRP, and SiteFinder doesn't affect the RRP.
There are plenty of reasons why SiteFinder is a bad idea. These just aren't some of them. And for ICANN to toss them in and try to puff them up to be some legal threat will only say to VeriSign that ICANN is grasping at straws for some authority here.
-Todd
"The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
I just transferred from verisign to gkg.net ... It was extremely painless. I emailed verisign to get my auth code, and I received it from them within a day. I filled out the forms on gkg.net and within a few days, it was all set up. No loss of service whatsoever.
gkg also gives you the option of letting them obfuscate your email address in whois; it's still a valid address, but gkg filters mail for spam before forwarding it to you.
Oh, and you can do it now. They'll cover the remaining portion of your contract with verislime for no extra charge.
Yes, Virginia, you can transfer your domain without losing your service.
-monique
So much for having my homepage set to "http://cowboyneal-is-the-man.com".
j/k
In all actuality, I can say that ending this lame excuse for grabbing desktop real estate will save me loads of time. I have all kinds of administrative scripts that look up DNS records for my customers and report on live/dead/moved domains. SiteFinder threw quite a monkey wrench into the system.
-- Stu
/. ID under 2,000. I feel old now.
I was there when WEB was the new thing and there were just a handfull of sites.
We just to use ftp a lot, gopher (gikes), I loved archie for ftp searches, and of course all the loved telnet bbs and forums
But now all services are been dump to the web even ftp that works so good. Lot's of companys now only host files in web servers (with sucks)
Sadly the WEB has taken over the internet and now acounst for a very high percent of the internet. So correcting you...
"The World Wide Web is not the Internet but Almost"
Sorry
BSD licensed software can't be stolen....
Says they can't do this... this could mean the ITU will push even more so for control. Thanks Verisign, you filthy animals...
.com and .net domains through VariSign will now cost $699.
Well, it's not against the law per sae but it is against their contractual obligations to ICANN. And, according to Verisigns response to ICANN's initial request, there *are* other registrars who do this. Of course, they didn't specify which ones and I've never seen one but they're supposedly out there.
Anthony Papillion
Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
"Quality Custom Software and IT Services"
I would be very tempted to have all requests that come back as sitefinder.verisign.com display a DNS resolution error instead.
Yeah yeah, I know 2 wrongs do not make a right, but it would definitely send a clear message to Verisign. They need to realize that in order for techologies to work, people need to work together. No one holds all the power; anyone can come and screw you at any given time. That's why everyone needs to play nice, because the alternative is everyone loses.
Overrated Moderation: This posts sucks... because.
I have found a couple common misspellings of my domain that are still available. By looking at the contents of the sessions on my site I see that the users who come in on certain misspellings actually stick around a bit. Either they ended up on my site by accident and liked it, or sitefinder actually helped me (and them) out by pointing them to the correct site. I don't currently have enough visitors from those misspellings to justify purchasing them, but Verisign has just given me a free service that is of at least some value.
I agree that it breaks DNS, and that it is an unfair use of their position (just imagine when they start removing non-Verisign registered domains from the list of suggestions!). Generating lists of domain misspellings in referer logs is certainly in Verisign's best interest, since some users will want to scoop them up.
But it's not all bad, just mostly bad.
Error: PANTS NOT FOUND. Press <F1> to continue.
How long will it take for the other root servers to route around Verisign? So people have to wait a few days to register a .com. That's not such a big deal.
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
Thanks ICANN, this has been bothering me forever ever since Aplus.nets billing department got all screwed up, and my domain name was susbended for a month, I am hoping this does the trick.
Not sure if this is even a well-phrased question. Anyway, I know that Verisign is only granted stewardship through ICANN's authority. What is ICANN's authority over the domain name space based upon? To me the domain name space feels analogous to the analog electromagnetic frequency space - owned by the people generating/populating the space. The FCC doesn't own the airwaves, they administer them at the behest of the public. Verisign's actions are like the FCC blasting "God Bless America" ads on every frequency that doesn't already have an existing licensed station transmitting. It's theft of a public resource. (Let alone the consequences of assuming that the only ports/protocols that matter on the Internet are HTTP and SMTP)
no.
Just like with every other "request" to remove SiteFinder.
Someone needs to force them, by law, or the "request" is null and void.
These people are allready playing bad, playing nice with them - will thus get you nothing.
# tempdig=`dig +short wheretobuygooddrugs.com`; dig +short -x $tempdig
sitefinder-idn.verisign.com.
# tempdig=`dig +short howtofindcheapwhores.com`; dig +short -x $tempdig
sitefinder-idn.verisign.com.
Read: http://www.circleid.com/article/298_0_1_0_C/
G1V3N 7h3 M4Gn17Ud3 0f 7H3 155U35 7h47 h4v3 B33n r4153D, 4Nd 7H31r p073n714l 1Mp4c7 0n 7H3 53cUr17Y 4nD 574b1l17Y 0f 7H3 1N73rN37, 7H3 dN5 4Nd 7H3 .C0M 4nD .n37 70p l3v3l d0m41N5, V3R151Gn mU57 5u5p3nD 7h3 Ch4nG35 70 7H3 .C0M 4nD .n37 70p-l3v3l d0m41N5 1N7R0DuC3D 0n 15 53P73mB3R 2003 bY 6:00 pM Pd7 0n 4 0C70b3r 2003. f41LuR3 70 C0MpLy w17H 7h15 d3m4nD By 7H47 71M3 w1lL L34v3 1c4nN W17h n0 Ch01C3 bU7 70 533k pR0Mp7lY 70 3Nf0rC3 v3r151gN\'5 c0n7r4c7u4l 0Bl1g4710N5.
Man, i gotta stop talking like that.
I am removing all my registrations from Network Solutions. They are overpriced and arrogant. Site finder is just the latest bad thing in a long line of bad things. Cut off their money and set up a new DNS register out of their control. Verisign has a bag case of greed and needs a wacking.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
Why does ICANN focus on the effects and ignores the fact that VeriSign's new protocol is not DNS at all. If it doesn't implement the domain not found response, it's not the same protocol. That's a breach of contract.
Besides, VeriSign should be made to pay for the domains they hijack.
Stop saying that!!
When a thing has been said, and said well, have no scruple. Take it and copy it. --Anatole France
- User-agent: *
thus causing archive.org to reject all requests for old sites.Disallow: /
VeriSign Will Temporarily Suspend Web Navigation Service in Order to Continue To Work With Internet Community Towards a Long-Term Implementation
Good for them. Even better for us.
It's a press release from VRSN, so naturally it is full of half-truths and lies, but the bottom line is that they are getting in line. I doubt SiteFinder or wildcards will be resurrected after this debacle.
Edith Keeler Must Die
Terms Of Use
INTRODUCTION.
In these terms of use ("Terms of Use"), "you" and "your" refer to each user ("User") and its agents and "we", "us" and "our" refer collectively to VeriSign, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries (collectively "VeriSign"). This Agreement sets forth our obligations to you, and your obligations to us solely in relation to the use of the Site Finder services provided through this web site (the "VeriSign Service(s)").
NATURE OF THE VERISIGN SERVICES.
You may have accessed the VeriSign Service(s) by initiating a query to our DNS resolution service for a nonexistent domain name. We are unable to resolve such queries through the DNS resolution service. You are free to reformulate your query and retransmit in the manner you transmitted your initial query or to use the search services of third party providers. The information provided through the VeriSign Services is not necessarily complete and may be supplied by VeriSign's commericial licensors, advertisers or others. The system used to provide the VeriSign Services is separate and apart from that which is used to provide the DNS resolution service and may differ substantially in terms of speed, uptime and other performance parameters. The VeriSign Services complement our DNS resolution service and provide information that may prove useful to you in locating the resources you originally intended to access. The VeriSign Services are provided only for your personal and non-commercial use. You are not authorized to modify, copy, display, transmit, license, create derivative works from, transfer, distribute or sell any information, software, products or services obtained from the services VeriSign provides through this web site. You may not "meta-search" the VeriSign Services. If you want to make commercial use of the VeriSign Services, you must enter into an agreement with us to do so in advance.
COST OF THE VERISIGN SERVICES.
The Verisign Service(s) are provided to you free of charge.
LINKS TO THIRD PARTY WEB SITES.
The VeriSign Service may automatically display categories and links to other third party web sites. These sites are displayed as search results or are linked through keyword search results by the VeriSign Services. These third party sites are not within our control, and VeriSign does not endorse, and is not responsible for any content on any linked sites or the goods or services offered on such sites. The search results that appear are merely made available to you for your own non-commercial use. We cannot be held liable for the acts or omissions of those third party sites. Your obligations and usage may be governed by such third party's terms and conditions and it is not our responsibility to require such access by you or your compliance with such terms and conditions. VeriSign does not represent, control or verify the accuracy of the information made available through the VeriSign Service.
BY THE VERY NATURE OF THESE VERISIGN SERVICES, THE RESULTS MAY CARRY SUBJECTIVE MATERIAL AND INFORMATION. YOU AGREE AND ACKNOWLEDGE THIS AND WILL USE CAUTION AND COMMON SENSE AND EXERCISE PROPER JUDGMENT WHEN ACCESSING THE VERISIGN SERVICES AND THIRD PARTY WEBSITES. AS A CONDITION OF YOUR USE OF THE VERISIGN SERVICES YOU WILL NOT USE THE VERISIGN SERVICES FOR ANY PURPOSE THAT IS UNLAWFUL OR PROHIBITED BY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS HEREIN.
Use of the VeriSign Services.
You agree not to use the VeriSign Services in any manner that is unlawful, or in any manner that could damage, disable, impair or otherwise interfere with another party's enjoyment and use of the VeriSign Service. You may not manipulate or attempt to gain unauthorized access to our website or systems or any websites or systems connected through our website through hacking, password mining or any other means.
Modification by VeriSign.
At any time VeriSign may modify or terminate these terms of use, its websites and the VeriSign Services and may at any time discontinue your use of the VeriSign Services without any notice
Take measures to force compliance, is what I remember the letter saying?
:-)
Perhaps they have a bunch of servers ready to serve as the com & net name servers, and they'll just shove out a little update to the root?
This is ICANN - they don't sue, they just re-direct all your web pages to the goat.cx guy...
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
Write in Wil Wheaton and he will beat Verisign into some semblance of sense.
Let's tally the votes.
Hello?! ICANN does not need a hearing because you, Verisign, breached your contract, not a law or something!
A $0.01 per year tax on domain name possession. Chump change for all of us, but not for the more than 50*38^63 domain names that Verisign just took control of. If it was good enough to nail Al Capone...
Oh, boy. Here come the mis-informed paranoids again.
Web browsers use A and CNAME records:
$ host nosuchtypoaddrdom.com
nosuchtypoaddrdom.com has address 64.94.110.11
$ nslookup 64.94.110.11
Server: localhost
Address: 127.0.0.1
Name: sitefinder-idn.verisign.com
Address: 64.94.110.11
$
But mail apps only send messages to MX hosts
$ dig verisign.com mx | grep -v '^;' | grep MX
verisign.com. 5m44s IN MX 400 verisign.com.mail8.psmtp.com.
verisign.com. 5m44s IN MX 500 pigeon.verisign.com.
verisign.com. 5m44s IN MX 500 peacock.verisign.com.
verisign.com. 5m44s IN MX 100 verisign.com.mail5.psmtp.com.
verisign.com. 5m44s IN MX 200 verisign.com.mail6.psmtp.com.
verisign.com. 5m44s IN MX 300 verisign.com.mail7.psmtp.com.
$ dig nosuchtypoaddrdom.com mx | grep -v '^;' | grep MX
$
Mail sent to a mis-typed domain will not be sent to a sitefinder mail server. That's not how their DNS typo hijacking works.
Sitefinder has caused trouble with email delivery, but not at all what you're claiming.
Yeah, Linux people have to get screwed over by secret configuration files for pkg-config preventing it from finding /usr/local. (See gtk-list.)
Dynamic linking is in an even sorrier state on *NIX than on Windows, because at least on Windows, everyone gives you the library it was compiled against in their software. When's the last time you used a Win32 installer that ran flawlessly, then gave you the (ever-so-helpful) "Symbol GLIBC_2_0 is not defined" error message?
I ought to hunt you down and stab you in the chest with your beloved LD_LIBRARY_PATH, then push LD_PRELOAD up your nose. And twist.
I wonder if by his expression that he knew he was ending up on this slide
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Article Here
More Here
His people? Stalin had no more right to kill a Russian than he had to kill anyone else.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A402 41-2003Oct3.html
"Without so much as a hearing, ICANN today formally asked us to shut down
the Site Finder service," said VeriSign spokesman Tom Galvin. "We will
accede to their request while we explore all of our options."
Are they kidding or something ?
morcego
Jay (=
I'm sorry, but (from what I understand) you are both misinformed.
When an email is sent, the first thing that is looked for is an MX record. If it doesn't find one, it will attempt to use the A record instead, if it exists.
So yes, mail is indeed ending up at the front door of verisign's sitefinder server. However, they have a very simple autoreject daemon running on the SMTP port. That way, mail still bounces.
I guess it COULD be possible that they are logging the bad emails, but there would be little use in doing so.
— darco
I actually mistyped one domain, got the sitefinder, clicked on the correct one and moved on.
As others have said, the problem is assuming internet==web. What they should have done was approached MS to have this kinda functioanlity put into IE...IE gets a DNS look failure, it sends it to the sitefinder site passing that domain.
This way the DNS doesn't get screwed, it provides mistypes a service and verisign can still recruit domain squatters. Only trick is how to convince MS it is in their best interest.
What's a buttfur?
Maybe we should give VeriSign a little break here ? I mean, after all, what they did is in fact fully compliant with the DNS rfc's.
... jeez ...
If you dont like the protocol specifications, then go beat up the specs, and NOT the implementors.
Now go away and write a rfc draft to update the DNS specs you demons
Connection reset by peer...
Well, I guess they're already late then...
By all means, please do write your code that rejects all recipients but still logs the contents of the DATA block.
Then tomorrow you can write me a telnetd that rejects all connections with "Invalid username or password", but then secretly logs the rest of the telnet session.
To them, www.google.com is the Internet.
Unfortunately, it is not google but MSN that is "The Internet" to these users....
...with the total lack of objectivity or the active deception in their press release (as linked to this thread), now would they? I guess having Verisign as a partner means not having you're sorry you hung the Internet.
The biggest crap is their constant claim that they are providing a service.
If they wanted to provide a service they could setup public name servers that did recursive lookups and returned sitefinder for non-existent domains. Anyone who wanted the service could change their DNS server to use theirs. Then it would be a service and they wouldn't be forcing anyone to use it.
VeriSign could offer a patch or replacement DNS server to any ISP that wanted the service or allow them to forward all DNS lookups.
I'm sorry but forcing things upon everyone is not offering a service. I'm keeping my patched djbdns not only in case Verisign brings back sitefinder, but to continue to block the *.ac, *.cc, *.cx, *.museum, *.nu, *.ph, *.sh, *.tm, and *.ws wildcards, not that I really use those domains.
This message is encrypted with Quad ROT-13 to protect the author's copyright under the DMCA.
On the surface this sounds like a good idea. OTOH it has that lowest-common-denominator factor to it that gives me hives. Call me old fashioned, but I don't buy the idea that everything online should idiot proof. Should we really break stuff to keep the PEBKAC crowd happy?
(Links below if you want to find out more about Site Finder.)
Press release at http://www.verisign.com/corporate/news/2003/pr_200 30923.html
Site Finder Frequently Asked Questions
And Verisign's Site Finder news page
mizzy
=================== Pretty? Feh. Shiny? Feh. A Jedi craves not these things.
Launched September 15, Site Finder provides useful tools for Internet users who mistype a domain name or attempt to connect to a web site that doesn't exist. Instead of receiving a cryptic error message, users receive a Web page that offers a search box, a "Did You Mean?" listing of similar domain names, and a listing of popular categories related to the search request. Through Thursday, Oct. 2, Site Finder has been used more than 40 million times by Internet users to get where they want to go online.
Now if that isn't a spin, I haven't been living in the geocentric world they want me to live in.
ICANN should jerk their ticket. can 'em. shut the sumbucks down. remove the addressing of those top level domain servers in the other domain servers of da ISH and zero out VeriSign. sue 'em. drop 'em from the mailing list. gutshoot their dog. follow their kids to school in a dark-windowed van.
You've gone off the medication again, haven't you? We've discussed this before. Just take the pills like you're supposed to, and we won't have to report this. :)
I work in the Pennsylvania customer service office of Network Solutions. Today an email went out site wide followed shortly thereafter by another email entreating us to ignore and delete the email. That it couldn't be verified as valid. Here's the email:
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 15:59:05 -0400
From: "[deleted]"
Subject: FW: Site Finder Update
To: "'[deleted]@mac.com'"
Original-recipient: rfc822;[deleted]@mac.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Lewis, Rusty
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 3:16 PM
To: vs-global
Subject: Site Finder Update
Dear Colleagues,
I wanted to let you know the latest information on the Site Finder service VeriSign launched recently to improve the experience for Internet users browsing the Web.
This morning we received a formal request from ICANN asking us to shut down the Site Finder service. Reluctantly, we will accede to the request while we investigate our options with this service. Today we are sending a letter to ICANN and issuing a press release stating that while we don't believe ICANN has authority over non-registry services, such as Site Finder, in the interests of working with the technical community we will temporarily suspend the service.
This debate is really about innovation. Site Finder is an innovative service that improves the browsing experience for millions of users by replacing frustrating error messages that offer no useful information with a consistent Web page that offers the user searching assistance. Through yesterday, Site Finder has been used more than 40 million times by Internet users to get where they want to go online.
We have worked closely with the technical community since its launch. On September 23, we established a Technical Review Panel comprised of Internet community leaders to help gather and analyze feedback about Site Finder. That panel will assist us in determine the next immediate steps, as well as the long-term implementation of Site Finder.
As we continue to determine the next steps for Site Finder, we will keep you informed about developments. If you have any questions about Site Finder, don't hesitate to e-mail me.
Regards,
Rusty Lewis
Now I don't know if this email was fake or not but judging from the recent articles in the news supporting the contention that they intend to temporarily suspend SitefFinder I'd say this email was sent to the wrong group by mistake here at Network Solutions.
Why am I still getting redirected to their site finder? http://www.verisignsucksbigfuckingmonkeyballs.com
"today announced that it will temporarily suspend its Site Finder, a new service to improve Web navigation for Internet users."
SiteFinder is still active now at least -- just tried an invalid URL.
"During the more than two weeks that Site Finder has been operational, there is no data to indicate that the core operation of the Domain Name System or stability of the Internet has been adversely affected."
Cool, you didn't ruin the DNS system and caused internet-wide instability. Good job!! *pats VeriSign on their back* Seriously... was that even expected? The problems lies in other areas...
"The service has been well received by millions of Internet users who appreciate getting navigation tools as opposed to the 'dead end' of an error message," added Lewis.
I suppose they're enjoying their increased amount of spam due to spam filters malfunctioning too?
"The next several weeks will be a test as to whether innovation will occur within the Internet infrastructure. The fact is that while the Internet has been used for innovative purposes over the last decade, the core infrastructure has suffered from a lack of innovation,"
Advertisements (or redirects to a commercial web site, whatever you'd like to call it) isn't an improvement to the core internet infrastructure in any way.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
(emphasis added)
Go easy on Matt, he's just the messenger.
Edith Keeler Must Die
Don't transfer domains in december! Everyone orders "new" domains, the registrars do their normal job (connecting the new domains) and later in their spare time do the transfer of "old" domains.
Transfer your domain in the last week of january or in the first week of februar.
NoSuchGuy
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
I, for one, welcome our repetive overlords.
A great deal has been made of using a wildcard on the .com and .net TLDs, including as some have pointed out here, the fight between NSI / Verisign and ICANN as looking like a turf battle between two gangs.
So, what is the real answer? Let the lawyers decide? Hell no. LET THE MARKET DECIDE. What we all really need is more litigation... please.
Certain self-interested tech weenies were up in arms about the move by NSI and questioned the stability of the Internet and how this might somehow represent a catastrophe of biblical proportions. It is now two weeks later and the Internet has not collapsed, in fact, some folks may have actually found a good domain for themselves or at least been routed to useful resources to meet their immediate needs.
There are now patched DNS server versions that address and route around the matter for those ISPs who may well already do such things to their own users and who were pissed off because they had been trumped at their own game.
The reality is that the NSI move did nothing that was not part of the specifications for DNS. Nothing really broke. Some techies came up with some solutions that made assumptions regarding DNS for spam filters. I support the development of good spam filters, however, who was it who said, "when you assume, you make an ass of u and me"? Perhaps this might be the reason that no real problems of consequence have occurred. The dogs may bark but the caravan moves on.
Contractual obligations indeed. This seems simply a matter of lawyers making more money for themselves and small groups of people with a great deal of power bestowed upon them struggling to get more power, while fighting a battle that has little or nothing to do with the Internet's overall stability.
The solution to the madness? If Verisign were to create a pool account for all ICANN approved registrars that received, contained and redistributed any funds that SiteFinder were to generate back to the registrars in proportion to their customer domain registrations with a portion tithed to the ICANN gods. Do you want to bet that this nightmare would then be over faster than you can say "settle on the courthouse steps"?
The folks at ICANN are smart and understand that power is good, but money is better. If such a plan were implemented, then you would have your real answer to what this matter is really all about.
okay, they said they're turning it off. how long does it take to bounce the daemons?
i say throw the book at them. i have no choice about using their system, if i don't agree to their terms.
stored on computers from birth to the grave
Good god...
It is not up to VeriSign to decide whether users want this kind of service or not. The solution they're trying to 'offer' should be a client-side solution, leaving it up to the user. It should be a part of a WEB browser, an optional feature of MS Internet Explorer or Mozilla or whatever browsers are out there.
Modifying root logic of DNS for just a single application - WEB browsing - is the most stupid thing one can ever concieve.
From: owner-registrars@verisign-grs.comr egistrars@verisign-grs.com]On Behalf Of VeriSign Customer
.com and .net zones and revert to the former behavior for these
[mailto:owner-
Service
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 6:08 PM
To: registrars@verisign-grs.com
Subject: [RegistrarsList] VeriSign NDS Response to Suspension of Site
To All Registrars,
I am writing to update you on VeriSigns Site Finder service. On Friday,
October 3rd, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN) directed VeriSign, Inc., to temporarily suspend service no later
than 6PM PST, Saturday, October 4. VeriSign requested an extension from
ICANN for 3 additional days for the shut down in order to provide the
technical community time to make any necessary system changes.
Unfortunately, ICANN refused this request. Accordingly, in response to
this demand, VeriSign is temporarily suspending the Site Finder service
as of Saturday, October 4 at 6PM PST.
In suspending the service, VeriSign will remove the wildcard A records
from the
zones which is returning Name Error/RCODE=3 in response to queries for
nonexistent domain names.
VeriSign remains committed to improving the Internet user experience.
We look forward to providing the Site Finder service following this
suspension. Thank you for your business. We greatly value our
relationship with you.
Best Regards,
Chris Sheridan
Manager, Customer Service
VeriSign, Inc.
www.verisign.com
Friday Oct 3 11:52 PM and sitefinder still returns for non-existent domains:
- - http://www.dzkigjh24itjnasldkfmgnasdlkfm.com/1 ]:80... connected.h 24itjnasldkfmgnasdlkfm.com&host=www.dzkigjh24itjna sldkfmgnasdlkfm.com [following]--23:53:15--
~: wget www.dzkigjh24itjnasldkfmgnasdlkfm.com
--23:53:15
=> `index.html'
Resolving www.dzkigjh24itjnasldkfmgnasdlkfm.com... done.
Connecting to www.dzkigjh24itjnasldkfmgnasdlkfm.com[64.94.110.1
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 302 Found
Location: http://sitefinder.verisign.com/lpc?url=www.dzkigj
Bastards! And holy obfuscated code near the bottom of the returned page!
> However, many MTAs will try the A record if it can't find an MX record, so email is affected.
:-)
*MANY* ? I'd hope *ALL* otherwise they are too braindead to exist.
Falling back to the A record if there is no MX is in the RFC's. It's the required way of doing things.
You could argue that it's not a good idea these days -- and it's caused me hassle - setting up dummy MX records for domains with no mailserver just to stop spammers slamming the "A" address.
However, this argument is largely irrelevent currently, as that's how things are meant to work, so that's how they must
Sig out of date
Funniest shit I have read in a long time.
An ultimatum...
ICANN acted without a hearing? Yaright. How much of a hearing did Verisign give ICANN before Verisign unilaterally messed with DNS? Sauce for the goose and all.
I want Mr. Lewis' e-mail address. I need to practice frying someone to a crisp without ever resorting to personal attacks, foul language or other such low-class behavior.
I'm kind of new to this whole *NIX thing but I wanted to do my part. This guy I know said that there are some files that show how Verisign *knew* what they are doing is possibly in breach of their contract with ICANN.
But I couldn't get anything but some weird search page- I guess their server is really busy or something. Anyway, I kept trying back, but it was a pain to keep re-typing it, so this other really good friend of mine gave me the following command so that I can mirror the site- I'll post a link just as soon as I get it.
while [ 1 ] ; do wget -r -l inf http://verisignareabunchofbastards.com ; done
Maybe we can all try to get through by running that command and the first person to get the documents can then post them here?
So if I beat the shit out of an old lady right in front of you, took all her money and handed you 5 bucks you'd feel I wasn't 'all that bad afterall'.
I think ICANN should basically tell VeriSign, "If you pull this crap again you're through."
What do you mean "again" ?? They're still doing it.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
As the use of DNS for looking up web sites is one of may specific applications of DNS, then looking for alternate sites and dealing with typos is OBVIOUSLY an application level problem. Build it into the browser. Verisign, if they want, could develop an extension to DNS that let a browser say "what domains are similar to this" or something.. that would be fine.. as long as they leave things work they way they are supposed to.
well, actually their dns sucks, their registration of domains is mediocre, their whole company sucks, but too many people use it, cause they don't have a choice, or don't know any better
LostboyTNT MercyHosting.Com
Server-Status.Com
50Bux.Com
TLDR.Com
It's still there. I guess VeriSlime is going to push it right up to the deadline.
VeriSlime and SCO really do belong together, as a faux news release posted here announced. Two soiled icons of greed and arrogance.
Look at the bright side: there's always seppuku.
Really. That's like Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War asking for an extension to the extinguishing of the Kuwaiti oil field fires to give more notice to the region and the world that the emission of noxious black smoke was going to cease.
The VeriSlime people have no shame whatsoever.
Look at the bright side: there's always seppuku.
Nice argument, but do you really think that third parties have to justify the means others took to get a benefit? Your tidy little example doesn't address the fact that the bad action that spawned the secondary benefit was going to happen regardless. If you live life adhering to an ethics textbook examples, you're in for a rude awakening on the greyness that is real life.
Are we not supposed to use the eugenics information the Nazis collected toward any sort of benefit, simply because the means by which they were collected was attrocious? The attrocities have already occurred. You cannot reasonably construe usage of the information as condoning attrocities. It is not the most human and humane thing to do to turn bad into good when possible?
The DNS issue is out of my hands currently... does that make the information I can collect from Verisign's expoitation useless? No. I'm going to make something of it.
Error: PANTS NOT FOUND. Press <F1> to continue.