Re: [Declude.JunkMail] VeriGrime

[Matthew Bramble]

There are two different classes though of TLD's in question though, gTLD's and ccTLD's.  The only other offending gTLD is the .museum domain, and efforts to wildcard .biz was stopped by ICANN.  Some of the ccTLD's are being used generically, however it seems that ICANN is going about this as an issue for the country in question to decide. Personally, I believe that the wildcard .museum domains aren't really an issue since this isn't a commercial domain, and only museums can apply for one and there are only 632 such names in existence. In this context, VeriSign is on it's own, and VeriSign is merely the party currently given the responsibility for maintaining the registry for .com and .net, and not the organization in charge of all such affairs concerning that gTLD. Hatred for VeriSign should also be shared by Yahoo who is supplying the backend for the search mechanism to work (Inktomi and Overture). I don't give this very long before it gets pulled.  If it doesn't get pulled, ICANN should be forced to go under a total reorganization. Matt Kevin Bilbee wrote: Lets start this off with I agree Versign has done things in the past that were on the shady side. But I also feel that on this issue they are being targeted because they are the largest TLD operator with a wildcard implementation. A good side affect is that if I was receiving spam from a nonexistane .museum domain MAILFROM would not fail. Would Scott have fixed Declude to handle wildcards? -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Phillip B. Holmes Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 11:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] VeriGrime Kevin, I agree in theory to your point but your argument does not take the scale of this situation into consideration. The .com extension is typically the most sought after extension. .Net is widely used for ISPs that have been most affected by operator processes that are / were in place for their users / network optimization. This maneuver was not a violation DNS specification. However, this substantially more serious and market affecting than anything else that has happened so far. Lets forget about the hundreds of thousands of processes it disabled for a minute and just look at the possible legal violations of VeriSign's Registry Agreement. There are far reaching ramifications pertaining the search engine market as well (Hence the 100 million dollar antitrust lawsuit: http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/6818688.htm). What the Verisign petition/lawsuit is saying is if you rob Fort Knox clean it is not ok, but if you just rob a small town bank you should be able to walk free. If Versign's laywers are smart they will get the suit thrown out in bias. They are not listing or sewing any other TLD owners that are using wildcards. I am not the owner of whois.sc. So, I would express your opinion directly to them. I posted that for the thousands of sysadmins that have had tens of thousands of processes break because of the unilateral change made by this wildcard implementation. I also point out that VeriBlind did this without ICANN approval. This has also prompted the IAB to release a commentary on the use of DNS wildcards: http://www.iab.org/documents/docs/2003-09-20-dns-wildcards.html This article makes no mention of VeriSign. Instead it says "Problems encountered in a recent experiment with wildcards" At least they are being fair and not specifically mentioning a particular TLD operator. That was my original point. Today, ICANN has formerly asked VeriSlime to voluntarily suspend the Site Finder "service" pending an investigation that was ALREADY underway before the update was released. Then ICANN should ask all TLD operators to remove their wildcard implementations. They affect queries just like Verisigns wildcards. Once again BIAS against Verisign because they are the operators of the two largest TLDs. VeriMime has been strangely very quiet. I wonder why. Best Regards, Phillip B. Holmes -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Kevin Bilbee Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 12:31 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] VeriCrime I think for this to stick they need to change the letter to address the issue of other TLD systems that do the same thing. YOU are TARGETING one company when in fact others started this before Verisign with other TLDs. If this is what you actual believe on its technical merits/violation of the RFCs then the letter should be expanded to include all companies that manage TLD root servers that return and answer for non-existent domains. Although I think the letter makes good technical points, I think it is misplaced to reference only Verisign. I would sign a letter that includes all companies that manage TLD root servers that return answers for non-existent domain names. My two cents. Kevin Bilbee -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Phillip Holmes Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 7:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] VeriCrime Petition against VeriCrime's abuse of root operation: http://www.whois.sc/verisign-dns/ Best Regards, Phillip B. Holmes -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of serge Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 5:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Veriscam oops just found something in the archive, please disregard my question if it was already explained here in simple tems i will read the archives and see if i get it :)