Re: [sitefinder-tech-discuss] Pseudo code please

[Andrew Newton <anewton@verisignlabs.com>]

Owen DeLong wrote:
> Sure... The nature is that my customer complaints from wildcards in other
> domains is 0.  The number from the .com/.net wildcards exceeded 50 per day
> for most of the duration.  If I get more than one customer complaint per
> month from a CHANGE in the behavior of a TLD, then I'm going to be upset
> with the operator of said TLD. As such, I am more than VERY upset with
> Verisign.
>
> However, that's not a real valid way to approach this, it's just more
> annecdotal evidence of the need.

Actually, it is very helpful to us.  We would very much like to know 
what type of customers you are dealing with and the specific nature of 
their complaints.

> The real issue and reason that .com and .net are different from .museum
> is that .museum is a "sponsored" domain with a clear owner and a clear
> constituency that agreed that wildcards were an acceptable and good idea
> for that TLD.  It serves a very different purpose than .com and .net.
> I suspect that if you were to approach the community about wildcarding
> .org or .edu, you'd get similar responses.  Frankly, the only reason I
> can think of that noone has objected to this in .us is that we just
> didn't notice the change because not very many people actually use
> the .us domain in URLs that they type.

I believe this to be a political opinion.  Unless your network cannot 
receive mail from machines with these TLD's and unless your machines are 
incapable of making HTTP requests to domains in the these TLD's, their 
wildcards have the same effects as the one in com/net.  The DNS protocol 
doesn't behave differently for "sponsored" domains.

-andy


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