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

[bmanning@karoshi.com]

> 
> bmanning@karoshi.com wrote:
> > 		wildcard entries come in a couple flavors.
> > 		using wildards for TXT and MX are fairly benign.
> 
> Not that I disagree, but can you explain why you believe this?
> 
> -andy

	I could, but then I'd have to relive a tramatic episode from
	my past... :)
	
	wildcards function effectively as a "catchall" referal.
	with TXT, there is a straight, free-form string that is 
	handed back.  No expectation of a "service".

	with MX, there is the explicit expectation of a correctly
	functioning SMTP server/relay - lots of sites use this
	technique.

	Hence benign.  More "prickly" are things like wildcard "A"
	records.   Ms. Random Disgruntled has zero idea (from the DNS
	side of the house) what, if any, services may be hanging off
	the IP address on the other side of that A.  For all she knows,
	the services can and will change over time...  Was this 
	ambiguity considered as a design goal?

	Then there is my just posted whack at something even more
	stupid...  wildcard NAPTR.  Of course, if I was being really
	creative, I would suggest something like this (and if you use
	it, remember, this was my idea and I wish to protect my ideas...:)
	
	net. in soa (rr-bits)
	     in ns  <ns-list>
	*    in naptr <naptr rdata>
	        a     <service-host>
		mx    <smtp-handler>
		enum  <directory-services>
		txt   '06aug1943-16oct1998 - jbp - creative genius'
		.
		.
		.
		ns   <ns-list>   <--== why we need "wildcard clarify"

YMMV
--bill

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