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

[bmanning@karoshi.com]

> 
> > 	with MX, there is the explicit expectation of a correctly
> > 	functioning SMTP server/relay - lots of sites use this
> > 	technique.
> >
> True.  However, as an implementation detail, having *.com. and *.net.
> MX records is a lot more prickly than a *.foo.com. MX record.  I suppose
> if Verisign wanted to run an open relay for all of *.com. and *.net.
> that would store messages and forward them if the nonexistant condition
> was resolved within say 7-14 days, it wouldn't be as big of a problem,
> but that isn't what they were doing.  Throwing the mail on the floor
> is not an acceptable approach.

	an aspect of implementation.  perhaps we can suggest that when/if
	wildcads are re-enstanciated, that Versigin adopt this as a
	useful tool, running an open relay for all *.<com,net> 
	entries, based on your recommendations above... as a condition
	of re-enstatement.

> > 	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?
> 
> Sadly, I think the design goals for the .com/.net wildcards were very 
> similar
> to the design goals for the African Email scams.

	I was hoping for a response from the folks at verisign.

> 
> Owen
> 
> 


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