this bit of thread jumped out.
> In the case of mitigation through wildcard-to-localhost, it is safe to
>> assume that many organizations did in fact mitigate; we simply can't tell
>> how many or when.
>>
>
> How come?
>
back in the early days of potentially confusing assignments/delegations, I
maybe others would be interested.
/Wm
-- Forwarded message --
From: william manning
Date: Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] moving forward on special use names
To: John Levine
I'm liking Johns approach - There is not a technical solution to a policy
or politica
So as not to incur the wrath of Tim (again),
(He knows what I mean.)
On 9/12/16, 16:19, "DNSOP on behalf of Suzanne Woolf" wrote:
>As we discussed in Berlin, we need to move forward with adopting a problem
>statement draft for further work on special use domain names.
>The drafts are:
>https
(very very delayed reply, rebooting draft now...)
On 2016-03-17 at 22:45, John Kristoff wrote:
The introduction lists 8 areas of interest. All, except "7. Name
Server" have their own section in the table of contents. Oversight?
Yes, one section was missing. Fixed now.
This sentence is a
