Re: [sitefinder-tech-discuss] followup from 15oct secsac

[bmanning@karoshi.com]

> > 	on delivery:
> > 		wildcard entries come in a couple flavors.
> > 		using wildards for TXT and MX are fairly benign.
> 
> Wildcard MX are very MALIGNANT unless they point to a name that returns
> NXDOMAIN and there is no A record.

	say what?  why oh why do you think that people use wildcard
	MX records in this fashion?  It appears you are getting tangled
	back up in the delivery method vs service.  granted MX rrs
	(wildcard or not) imply something at the other end beinging
	able to deal -correctly- with what is presented on port 25.

	your still hunting for that old RCODE-3 stuff...  
	what -IF- one of the design goals for this goofy  idea
	was to -ELIMINATE- all RCODE-3 replies?

	in any case... how would folks feel about something like this:

	com.  in soa (bits'o'rr)
	      in ns  lumpy.
	      in ns  gravy.
	*     in naptr (naptr-bits)

	whango z tango --- no pesky A rr... :)


> > 	on service:
> > 		what will be offered and why?
> > 		what will not be offered and why?
> >
> Very good questions, but, the issue remains that there is no implementation
> of these wildcards that provides a benefit in excess of the damage.  There
> is NO reason (other than Verisign's greed) to turn these wildcards back on.

	that whole downside thing that you elided.
	
> 
> I plan to look into seeking an injunction in Santa Clara county next week.
> 
> Owen
> 


----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/unsubscribe>