Slashdot Mirror


Verisign's Lawsuit Against ICANN Dismissed

emtboy9 writes "Internet domain name registry VeriSign just can't seem to convince anyone that redirecting misspelled Web addresses to its own site is a good thing. A federal district court judge on Thursday threw out VeriSign's legal arguments that ICANN's ban on this tactic amounted to a violation of U.S. antitrust law. VeriSign, which runs the master database for .com and .net addresses, had argued that its competitors had succeeded in stymying VeriSign's plans for its Site Finder service by providing advice to the board of directors of ICANN, or the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers."

62 of 190 comments (clear)

  1. This seems familiar... by romper · · Score: 5, Funny

    VeriSign responded by issuing a press release stating that the federal court system doesn't really exist, and that all other domain registrars must purchase a license from VeriSign to continue to sell domain names or face litigation.

    --
    Right is wrong when left is right.
    1. Re:This seems familiar... by kmmatthews · · Score: 4, Funny

      That would be like them, to threaten to use a tool that they claim doesn't exist in order to coerce people to pay them. :)

      --
      feh. stuff.
    2. Re:This seems familiar... by Short+Circuit · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, that'd be like SCO.

      But seeing VeriSign lose reputability in the business world is fine, too.

    3. Re:This seems familiar... by XMyth · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes. What's wrong with that logic?

      -SCO

  2. yes.. because it was... by joeldg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "a service to the community"

    Those guys actually tried to pull that...

    I wonder how much stake overture had in that.. No journalist has ever approached them to find out their role in that story.

    a service indeed..

    1. Re:yes.. because it was... by shufler · · Score: 2, Funny

      Is that not a required attribute of the ninja?

  3. plagiarizing by avdp · · Score: 4, Informative

    emtboy9's writeup is not much of a writeup. It's word for word the first 3 paragraph of the article without giving CNet credit for it. That's kind of a no-no to me.

    1. Re:plagiarizing by anon*127.0.0.1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Luckily our eagle-eyed /. editors caught it before they posted it.

      --
      I am NOT a man!
      I am a free number!
    2. Re:plagiarizing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      As almost no one reads TFA around here, he probably thought that he could get away with it.

    3. Re:plagiarizing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why is this modded 'informative'??? It's quite clear he's ripping off this comment.

    4. Re:plagiarizing by Souffle · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is actually standard practice in Slashdot postings. So, apparently not a no-no to many people. Not saying it's right, only that I see it all the time.

    5. Re:plagiarizing by hendridm · · Score: 2, Informative
      Well, the article is linked. Still breaks CNET's Fair Abuse Policy

      That's what quotes are for (or in this case, likely single sub-quotes). They're fun and easy to use! Something like:

      emtboy9 writes "Saw this on new.com.com: 'Internet domain name registry VeriSign...'"

  4. After a long drought out legal common sense... by tao_of_biology · · Score: 4, Insightful
    it seems like the courts are getting things right lately (see also: SCO). It's a long time comin'.

    Maybe the knowledge of the judges, lawyers and whatnot is finally catching up with the times, and they are displaying some comprehension of the high tech fields on which they're ruling.

    One can only hope this trend of understanding continues.

    --

    -- "A chicken is an egg's way of making another egg."

    1. Re:After a long drought out legal common sense... by Nos. · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One can only hope this trend of understanding continues.
      and extends to the patent office.

    2. Re:After a long drought out legal common sense... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Maybe the knowledge of the judges, lawyers and whatnot is finally catching up with the times, and they are displaying some comprehension of the high tech fields on which they're ruling.

      Maybe the lawyers are catching up, but it has always been a requirement that a judge make a decision based on law. If he makes a decision you don't agree with, then somewhere there's a law that you don't agree with. If he makes a decision that you DO agree with, it's because there is a law somewhere that you DO agree with.

      I wish people would stop demonizing judges, or putting them on pedestals. They don't have much wiggle room for a "good" or "bad" decision. Their function is to interpret the law, even if they don't like what it says. All they can do is mitigate the damages according to what is allowed by law.

    3. Re:After a long drought out legal common sense... by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 4, Insightful
      How right you are. I watched a Judge return a verdict of "not guilty" because the law did not support the prosecutions case. She went on, however, to verbally tongue-lash the defendant for doing something that, while not "illegal," was certainly amoral and of questionable ethics ('twas a white-collar case).

      Judges in the the US are bound not only by the statutes, but by the interpretations of those statutes by higher courts. SCO, to choose a random example, is having their head handed to them because they have neither law nor fact on their side. IBM has both and they know how to use it.

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    4. Re:After a long drought out legal common sense... by AviLazar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Is it "always" however? I do not think we can say that a judge makes a decision, always, based on some pre-existing law. We do have precedents, and in the case of the Internet - which is still fairly young - we may not have many precedent cases.
      Judges have been known to go against pre-existing common laws and law based on differing circumstances, though this can be related to my first point.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    5. Re:After a long drought out legal common sense... by urlgrey · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Logic and common sense prevailed here indeed.

      If only this same judge could magically get even five minutes with the patent folks and teach them a thing or two about a thing or two.
      "Ok, folks, there are two new rules for awarding a patent. They are:

      "First, the idea can't have already existed in the outside world before you saw this idea. This means you'll have to do research. I suggest you try Google.

      "Second, the idea has to have merit. This means you'll have to do research. I suggest you ask at least two other people this question: 'Does this idea: [insert idea here] suck?"

      That's it. Meeting adjourned!
      We should be so lucky. :-|

      ----
      --
      Running 'Nix is like owning a Lightsaber. It's "a more elegant weapon for a more civilized time."
    6. Re:After a long drought out legal common sense... by Cali+Thalen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Judges make decisions based on their OPINIONS of th laws as they understand them, if they bother to know or research the laws in teh first place (which I assume most do, though not all).

      Assuming that the laws they're basing their decisions on in the first place are just, that's a decent system. If the original laws are crap, then you get new crap laws based on the old ones (until someone finds the lot unconstitutional and throws them out).

      Judges are human, just like the rest of us. They have good and bad days, they come in varying degrees of intelligence, and varying degrees of ignorance. And they aren't cookie-cutters when it comes to their decisions...their understanding and experience can easily affect their judgements.

      --
      Chaos, panic, disorder...my work here is done.
    7. Re:After a long drought out legal common sense... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, a judge is giving his opinion. However, he has to justify that opinion in his findings, or an appeals court will throw it out. Thus his ruling must be based on LAW.

      No, judges are not cookie cutters. It's very difficult for them to know all laws in the area of which they make judgments. That's why we have lawyers. If a lawyer can't correctly argue the case, then the judge may make a decision that could later be overturned. But to say that judges are understanding technology better is a bit silly. It's the lawyers who have to make their case and argue the law in their favor. The judges decision is constrained to that which is on the books, and that which was presented in court.

    8. Re:After a long drought out legal common sense... by pilgrim23 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Think of the Constitution and all subsequent case law as a so-so design for an initial release, then patch after patch being applied with never once a trace of a major upgrade: US Law version 1.99999999999a Alpha

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    9. Re:After a long drought out legal common sense... by pfleming · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Whether a law is good or bad is subjective. Holding someone accountable for a reading of law that you do not agree with is ludicrous. If you don't like the law work to change the law. Whether a judge is good or bad is going to depend on which side of the ruling you happen to be on.

    10. Re:After a long drought out legal common sense... by man_ls · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Someone should countersue SCO under a malicious prosecution law.

      Those carry MAJOR penalties...It's illegal to use the court system to conduct a vendetta for which there is no legal reason for doing so. I.e. SCO is talking out of their ass and using the courts to do it, that's not legal.

  5. Wait a minute... by response3 · · Score: 5, Funny

    www.goolge.com = www.verisign.com. Huh? Or even worse, www.reallynastygirls.com = www.verisign.com !! Oh the horror!

  6. Would work... by omghi2u · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This would work if a third-party site that had lists of registrars went up...

    But then VeriSign wouldn't make as much money!

    1. Re:Would work... by eln · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yah, there's a certain irony in Verisign suing someone through the antitrust laws. Allowing Verisign to purchase Network Solutions, and in fact letting Network Solutions run as a for-profit company in the first place, were some of the stupidest decisions in the history of the Internet.

    2. Re:Would work... by slungsolow · · Score: 2, Informative

      They're no longer together so its not really that big of a deal anymore. At the time there was no precedent for companies like Verisign and Net Sol, so they just went with the flow.

      If it wasn't for that other company stepping in and purchasing net sol, they'd probably still be together.

      Hell, verisign still owns a minority interest in net sol and its subsidiaries.

    3. Re:Would work... by rs79 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You never paid $100 a year, ever. Check your facts.

      There was an "intellectual infrastructure" fund levy added by the NSF - this was to keep the IETF process "pure" in light of more commercialization of the various I* organizations. It was to be used for paying people to attent conferences, research, stuff like that. Congress pilfered it and spent it on Internet2 benefitting the organization headed by the newly appointed head of ICANN. Just coincidence I'm sure.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
  7. Misspellins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I for one, wish that all misspellings in URLs would just automatically go to a porn, casino or other site that tries to hijack your home page and/or install spyware. It would save millions of dollars to the poor companies who provide these services.

  8. Coming soon... by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sorry! Your request for "www.icann.org" was not successful. The domain may not exist or may be a bunch of jerks that won't let us get away with world dominations.

    Please visit <a href="http://www.verisign.com/">this super awesome site</a> to find what you're looking for.

    1. Re:Coming soon... by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sorry! Your request for "www.icann.org" was not successful. The domain may not exist or may be a bunch of jerks that won't let us get away with world dominations.

      Coming soon: VeriSign to rename itself "ICANT".

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:Coming soon... by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...or "ICANTOO".

  9. I know it will be modded redundant, but... by wolfemi1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...Given the sheer number of spurious lawsuits I've been seeing on here, this comes as a great relief to me that one large one is being thrown out of court. Thank you, US justice system!

    Boy, I don't get to say that too often....

  10. What? by cr0y · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Maybe someone can fill me in, I have been following this, but I still don't get how one company can control all the .com and .net domains....Isn't that illegal?

    --

    ItWasFree.com - Take the mystery
    1. Re:What? by rs79 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The National Science Foundation originally funded all registration services for IPs and Domains. They bid it out and NSI won it. At the time the net was largely US academic and R&D and fell within the aegis of the NSF.

      When Stephen Wolff privatied the NSF backbone and uunet, sprint etc had an excuse to exist, Wolff simply overlooked the fact the domain/ip stuff was still in government control.

      The original plans were to create lots of others NSI's. Postel in 96 wanted 300 new TLDS to compete with NSI; tradictionally the net solves problems of monopoly by the creation of additional resources, not regulation, but, the trademark attornies saw ICANN as a convenient stranglehold and combined with the tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars big busines have paid for washington lobbyits to exert influence there is no real competion for NSI, jsut additional sales channels. Unless of course you think .coop, .museum and .pro are even remotely viable.

      It's unfortunate that todays decision, while highly regarded, asssits ICANN in it's feature creep; it's scope is supposed to be a narrow technical mandate, and they've prevented NSI from doing what dozens of other tlds have done for years.

      TO find the real motivation behind this, and no it's not NXDOMAIN - follow the money.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    2. Re:What? by _Wagz_ · · Score: 2, Informative

      What VeriSign was originally supposed to do was manage the .com, .net & .org domain extensions. In and of itself, that isn't a monopoly service, all they had to do was make sure registrars didn't double-dip on domain addresses and things like that. It wasn't until VeriSign bought Network Solutions, however, that a conflict of interest came up. *Then* VeriSign became both the manager of the gTLDs and it's own customer.

  11. If you get a domain wrong... by slungsolow · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you get a domain wrong, the god damn browser should take you to google or whatever search engine you specified under some settings within your browser.

    Its not like it would be that hard to do.

    1. Re:If you get a domain wrong... by Experiment+626 · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you get a domain wrong, the god damn browser should take you to google or whatever search engine you specified under some settings within your browser.

      Yes, the browser should be able to do something like what you describe. MSIE does, and I'm pretty sure somewhere out there are Mozilla/Firefox extensions to do the same thing. It would be even better if the browser can do it in a configurable way - let you pick the search engine, let you turn the feature off if you want to see the error messages, and so on.

      The big problem with SiteFinder is it's NOT the browser taking you to a search engine, it's a broken DNS implementation doing it. Unlike browsers, you can't just pick one that works the way you want it to. And if you happen to be isomg the net for something other than interactively surfing the Web, VeriSign's ploy can hurt you. Rather than that script giving you some kind of "host not found" if you have a typo, it decides VeriSign's server is the machine it's looking for.

    2. Re:If you get a domain wrong... by horza · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you get a domain wrong, the god damn browser should take you to google or whatever search engine you specified under some settings within your browser.

      Its not like it would be that hard to do.


      It is if Verisign returns a page which contains a code saying that the correct page has been found, but instead substitutes its own content (which is what it is doing).

      Phillip.

  12. best example of this by Chuck+Bucket · · Score: 3, Interesting

    or the best example provided *because* of this is http://www.whitehouse.org/. Moce, very moce!

    CB

  13. I miss return codes by Dekks · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I find it more and more difficult to tell whether a site of pages exists anymore with moves like this. It used to be if a page wasn't there I'd get a nice 404 or if the site didn't exist I'd get a 502 etc. I use firefox at home, but at work we use I.E and if I type in a URL that doesn't work I get taken to msn search page, does that mean the server is down, doesn't exist or what? If I look for a page that doesn't seem to be there, instead of a 404 I get told page unavailable unless the site has their own custom not found page, does this mean it doesn't exist or its not available? Its the dumbing down of the Internet.

    1. Re:I miss return codes by Tweezer · · Score: 3, Informative

      You can easily customize such actions in IE. Go to Tools|Internet Options|Advanced Under the Browsing section uncheck the "Show friendly HTTP error messages." Under search from address bar click the "Do Not search from the address bar" button.

      Then you can have your return codes back the way you want.

    2. Re:I miss return codes by donnyspi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      404 error pages are served by the server corresponding to the domain you typed in. if the domain doesn't exist (i.e. doesn't point to a server) then you get the msn search page or the VeriSign thing in the past.

    3. Re:I miss return codes by Ancil · · Score: 3, Informative

      we use I.E and if I type in a URL that doesn't work I get taken to msn search page, does that mean the server is down, doesn't exist or what?

      Tools -> Internet Options -> Advanced -> Search from the Address bar -> "Do not search from the Address bar" -> thank you; drive through

    4. Re:I miss return codes by MBoffin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In IE, there are options to turn off "friendly" error messages and let the server (not IE) serve you its own error page. It doesn't stop the server from making a "pretty" error page for you, but at least it will stop IE from giving you a generic "friendly" error message.

      Tools -> Internet Options -> Advanced -> Browsing -> Uncheck the "Show Friendly..." boxes

    5. Re:I miss return codes by pknoll · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It used to be if a page wasn't there I'd get a nice 404 or if the site didn't exist I'd get a 502 etc.

      Only if the server was resolvable, you mean. In the event of an unresolvable URL, what *I'd* like to see (and no browser in my experience has ever done this) is pop up an error:

      ERROR: The URL [http://badurl.com] could not be processed because [badurl.com] could not be resolved. DNS returned: NXDOMAIN

      I remember meaningful error messages, too. I wish there were more of them. Just tell me what happened. I can take it.

    6. Re:I miss return codes by Tokerat · · Score: 2, Informative


      While this is an inconvinience ( a "service" according to VeriSign, heh), this wasn't the major problem that a fundemental change to the top level DNS hierarchy was causing.

      According to RFC 2616 (HTTP/1.1), each response to an HTTP request is responded too with first a status code, then content. Therefore, all VeriSign had to do to fix the 404/502 problem would be to return all SiteFinder pages as status code 404. (Disclaimer: I am not aware if they actually did or not). If that was implemented, browsers could easily ignore SiteFinder while still displaying proper error codes.

      The big problem is that DNS is not used just for HTTP, but also for most FTP, telnet, email, you name it. If it works over the Internet, chances are it locates a server to establish a TCP connection to using DNS. Now, realize that your Telnet client doesn't know or care what an HTTP error code 404 is because, hey, it's a telnet client, not a browser, coupled with the fact that the actual DNS system would never return an error code but would instead re-route all bogus queries to the SiteFinder webserver, which has no ports open except 80, and you can quickly see how "mistyped URL" went from "simple mistake" to "hundreds of 'Connection timed out: 500 seconds' " messages quickly.

      Any mistyped e-mail address would make a mail server keep retrying to find "user@yhaoo.com" over and over, thinking the server was down, as opposed to it not existing.

      Think of it as if instead of a busy signal, telephones would ring 8 times and connect you to directory assistance if you dialed a disconnected number by accident, with no way to tell until the operator answered. IF you where as dumb as a computer, you'd just keep trying, thinking it would eventually have to work.

      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
  14. I think I speak for everyone on the planet.... by bani · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...when I say,

    fuck you, verisign

    1. Re:I think I speak for everyone on the planet.... by Epsillon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Typical! It's a troll just because the OP swore. Get real, mods, Verisign very nearly removed one of our weapons against spam, the non-existent domain rule. Now, does that not seem to be a very good reason for making the OP's post our slogan of the day, or does the Verisign DNS hijack have some obscure benefit that I didn't see?

      --
      Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it up.
  15. Re:Like it really matters.... by glpierce · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Had they won this case, SCO would have claimed ownership of Verizon and took it down anyways."

    I see - once they owned Verizon, they could cut off Verisign's phone service and then use it as leverage to get them to turn it down. Brilliant.

    --
    G
  16. As I understand it... by YouHaveSnail · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...Verisign essentially won a contract to maintain a couple of the most important top level domains for ICANN (on behalf of the rest of us). Verisign took that essentially as a grant of monopoly power over all unassigned domains in those TLD's, and thinks that it therefore has the right to point all requests for such unassigned domains to its own site.

    ICANN then said to Verisign: "Oh no you don't. Your contract is just to maintain a couple of databases. You don't suddenly own the net." And so, predictably, Verisign went to court to plead it's so-called case. Just as predictably, they lost.

    It's nice when things work out like they should.

    1. Re:As I understand it... by xgamer04 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah yeah ICANN was all like "Yo Veri, take care of my peeps fo a while" and Veri was like "OK holmes", but then veri was like "dag yo, i gots mad power" and ICANN came back and was all up in his face like "OH NO YOU DI-ENT!"

      --
      When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
  17. A good thing indeed.. by tirnacopu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One cool application of this good thing I stumbled upon was one of the so many trojans (don't remember the exact flavour, CWSShredder erased it) which added its own IP address in the hosts file for sitefinder.verisign.com - the result? It took the user several days to find out how the heck the trojan kept showing back, since he only visited 2 (two) sites with IE because of the usual incompatibilities. A small typo, a mhtml:// exploit and voila! The fellow actually thought that the site where he did some e-commerce stuff was hacking his machine.. talk about losing a customer and not know what hit you.

  18. Remember when the day the internet died by wing03 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    At least that's what I remember it being called.

    When private corporation accounted for over half of what was and content on the Internet.

    I think it was 1997 or 1998.

    Sniff.

    1. Re:Remember when the day the internet died by rs79 · · Score: 2, Informative

      OTOH being able to buy stuff online is pretty handy, no?

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
  19. An actual benefit to Sitefinder by argent · · Score: 4, Informative

    Verisign caused a lot more damage than just to email. Any application that needs to determine the validity of a domain name broke. The solution, which was already being implemented in various places when Sitefinder went down, was to use a caching or forwarding nameserver locally and special-case the address of Sitefinder... make it look just like "no such domain" to any applications. Then if you're using a routing firewall you program it to NAT any other servers DNS requests to the root to go to one of your own DNS servers, and Sitefinder vanishes.

    This would have indirectly lead to a benefit, because it would make it that much easier to switch to an alternate root by changing your own configuration in one place, or otherwise ignore other "cunning schemes" Verisign might come up with.

    1. Re:An actual benefit to Sitefinder by Epsillon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Love the logic. I hadn't actually thought about it like that. I've been using alternate root servers for a long time now. Whilst the .biz cock-up is a minor annoyance, the thought that if everyone did the same petty companies like Verisign and even ICANN would rapidly become insignificant amuses me ;o)

      --
      Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it up.
    2. Re:An actual benefit to Sitefinder by argent · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One other possible answer is "you can't rely on NXDMAIN"; you couldn't before NSI did this of course as at the time 13 other TLDS were dong it from as far back as 3 years prior.

      Yes, yes, and there's SLDs and 3LDs that had used wildcard A records long before that. I've got an SLD that does it, for that matter.

      But... there's a big difference between a TLD that's been handed off lock stock and NS records to a vanity domain registrar, that's run as a private company, that might as well be a SLD as far as its relevance to the functioning of the domain name system is concerned, and a TLD like com, org, or a national TLD that's actually managed as a national TLD.

      And on top of that, DNS is exactly the wrong place to put the service you're talking about. The only service that was provided was for HTTP... for web browsers. There's maybe a couple of other protocols that might have benefited from it, but that's about all, and even for things like "you typoed your email address" it's a lot harder to figure out a good way to provide the service... and of course there's no likelihood that Verisign would ever do it.

      No, there's basically two places to put a service like this. In the web browser, and in a web proxy. They're the only places that can possibly know that a request was for a web page instead of something else.

      And Microsoft has put exactly this service in Internet Explorer. They do a crummy job of it: they don't distinguish usefully between "this host ain't here" and "this web page ain't here", and the information they provide is misleading, but they *do* have the ability to provide the same kind of service in a way that doesn't cause problems for other protocols.

      Putting it in the browser, or in a proxy (heck, you could get your proxy to redirect to Sitefinder or to any other service that does a better job... like Google, for example), limits it to requests where it makes sense, and gives people an incentive to use YOUR browser instead of someone else's. You know, I haven't looked, but I would be completely unsurprised to find there's already a Firefox extension that procides the same functionality... or better.

      This isn't Verisign's job, and Verisign has neither the abilityto do it right nor the power to decide to do it in the first place, and this decision simply declines to give Verisign a power it was never supposed to have.

  20. This was decided on the law, not the technology by dfl · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I don't think this case had much to do with the underlying technology, or even the benevolence / malevolence of the parties.

    I'd make a confident guess that the "basis" for this suit is a Supreme Court opinion from the 80s ("Hydrolevel") saying basically that standards-setting organizations can't allow themselves to become a tool for conspiratorial members who have an anti-competitive agenda.

    VeriSign tried to make a case that ICANN's decision reflected a bias in the structure of the organization. That's really a question about the ICANN bureaucracy and the objectivity of the decision-making process. Obviously the judge approved of ICANN's actions. But I don't think that approval has anything to do with the actual merits of the decision, but rather the procedure used to reach it.

  21. Re:verisign by cyberwitz · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's a funny quote from a movie not intended to be offensive [or even a genuine reference to sexuality at any level]. Basically I'm saying that working for them wasn't a pleasant experience, and I found many of their business practices to be less than what I would call ethical. Sorry for any confusion...

    --
    [This sig left intentionally blank.]
  22. Meaningful error messages by rs79 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've always wondered by a browser couldn't chase the dns to provide a more meaningfull diagnostic. For example:

    "No such domain exists" - the TLD servers returned NXDOMAIN

    "The domain exists but the authoritative servers are unreachable" - domain has been properly delegated by the parent zone but the nameservers are off the air

    "The domain is not set up properly" - the domain has been properly delegated and the authoritative nameservers answer with proper NS records but no A record can be found.

    And so on and so forth. Seeing the same "No DNS" since Marc Andresson released the first copy of Netscape on usenet is pretty lame.

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
  23. Does ICANN still get cut of the reg fee? by Em+Ellel · · Score: 4, Funny

    If so, it seems they should simply send Verisign a bill for infinate number of domains. (Is there a limit on how long a domain name can be?)

    I can just picture the look on the face of the Verisign employee opening a bill with a big infinity sign in the amount column.

    -Em

    --
    RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...