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

[Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>]

--On Thursday, October 16, 2003 9:49 AM -0700 bmanning@karoshi.com wrote:

> > > 	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.
Works for me, but, I'm not sure there's that much disk space in North
America. :-)

> 	I was hoping for a response from the folks at verisign.
You mean you didn't receive any "We're Verisgin, send us your money"
emails today?

Owen


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