On Sunday 25 Sep 2011 04:09:22 Jimmy Hess wrote: > On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Cameron Byrne <cb.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Just an fyi for anyone who has a marketing person dreaming up a big nxdomain > > redirect business cases, the stats are actually very very poor... it does > > not make much money at all. > > It is very important to ask the redirect partners about yields... meaning, > > you may find that less than 5% of nxdomain redirects can be actually served > > Not to take any position on there being a "business case" for > NXDOMAIN redirect, > or not but.... the percentage of NXdomain redirects that actually > serve ads isn't too important. > It's absolute numbers that matter, even if it's just 1% of > NXDOMAINS by percent. > > The rest of the 99% are referred to as "noise" and aren't relevant > for justifying or failing > to justify. > > The important number is at what frequency the _average_ user will > encounter the redirect > while they are surfing. If a sufficient proportion of their users > see the ads at a sufficient rate, > then they will probably justify whatever cost they have for the ad serving. > > When they are doing this crappy stuff like redirecting google.com DNS > to intercept > search requests; I have little doubt that they are able to inject > sufficient volume of ads to > make some sort of "business case" behind the hijacking evilness. > > > Regards, > > -- > -JH
I think a special mention should go to hardware vendors who adopt this dreadful practice in network equipment. I recently encountered an enterprise-grade WLAN router from vendor D that has the horrible habit of intercepting some % of queries to its local DNS cache resolver and forwarding to an affiliate Yahoo! search page, lousy with ads, under vendor D's control. This includes things like www.google.co.uk. I don't manage this device and therefore have opened a ticket with those who do to get them to turn the damn thing off, while in the meantime adding *.[vendor D]search.com 127.0.0.1 to my /etc/hosts. I must admit to being tempted to "fault" it with something heavy in order to force its replacement:-) But if anyone from vendor-D is on the list: congratulations, you've managed to invent a network device that is by definition untrustworthy, and I will never buy anything from your company. -- The only thing worse than e-mail disclaimers...is people who send e-mail to lists complaining about them
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
