16 Sep 2003 | Matthew said...

People have been putting together patches to dns servers and resolver libraries to mitigate this change and remove this crap from the DNS. ImperialViolet is maintaining a list.

17 Sep 2003 | alisha said...

Verisign is about the mighty dollar. They dont give a rats ass about improvement - except when it generates money. They also bid for the .org registry in 2002 against other well-suited organizations. The "Public Interest Registry" (PIR), a mini-versign won the bid.

"Network Solutions was purchased by VeriSign March 7, 2000 [13] and is currently the largest player in the US$1 billion/year "domain name industry."

"The registry "industry" is made up of three groups:
1. VeriSign, which submitted the UIA bid.
2. The 4 mini-VeriSigns, which run the new TLDs, including Register.Com (DotOrg and RegisterOrg), GNR, NeuStar, and Afilias (ISOC).
3. Everybody else. Unity was included in the table but the staff report went on at great length to discourage consideration of their bid."

"Handing .org to a mini-VeriSign simply insures more of the same. High prices, low transparency, bad service, and lack of innovation are the result."

source

So now the same folks are bringing you the new Site Finder service. Welcome to capitalism at its worst.

17 Sep 2003 | Don Schenck said...

What Alisha said. This is outrageous. I hope it dooms them.

17 Sep 2003 | Randy said...

I don't know, I don't think it's bad at all. It's certainly better for the user experience than a generic "server not found" error. Shouldn't we be thinking about the masses instead of the web dev geeks?

17 Sep 2003 | Darrel said...

Randy:

The web masses already use IE, which has this feature built in.

17 Sep 2003 | RS said...

Randy said I don't know, I don't think it's bad at all. It's certainly better for the user experience than a generic "server not found" error. Shouldn't we be thinking about the masses instead of the web dev geeks?

It goes deeper than 'server not found' errors. DNS manipulation like this interferes with a major spam filtration tactic. The Internet just doesn't work as well when you throw this kind of mud in it.

17 Sep 2003 | pb said...

C'mon everybody, it's not that big a deal. If it was like this from the beginning, noone would have ever complained. The notion that it disrupts spam-fighting is preposterous.

17 Sep 2003 | RS said...

Here's a list of implications from the security newsgroup that announced this thing:

1. Instant departure from clearly established, expected DNS behavior
2. Verisign demonstrates total ownership of .COM and .NET root hierarchy
3. Unilateral action to insert corporate advertising into heart of Internet
4. Junk filtering that checks existence of domains is now broken
5. Nameservers around the world will now cache all sorts of useless junk
6. Mail to invalid domains (typos, bounces) will go to Verisign
7. Admins will have a harder time determining site configuration errors
8. Invalid URLs can now pollute search engines and automated systems

pb - (4) refers to the fact that some spam filters check the domains of messages that have suspect "From" headers. if the domain doesn't exist, the message is clearly spam, and is filed as such. if verisign says the domain does exist, the message looks legit and goes into the inbox.

preposterous it is not.

17 Sep 2003 | scorched said...

pb, this is a big deal. it's an abuse of the monopoly that Verising was given. It has major implications across all the major internet protocols (not just http, they in fact get to touch every email with a mistyped address for instance). It gives Verising millions in revenue (pay per click search), and causes many headaches to the people that deal with the inner workings of the internet.

I had to rewrite a couple of classes last night and rebuild a couple of enterprise applications because of this new behavior. We've had to modify routers, patch software. I've wasted alot of valuable time.

Further, Verising didn't attempt to RFC this, or even give us any prior warning for a change in behavior in the *entire* .com and .net namespace.

Write your congressmen. We can only hope that the backbone carriers will null route the address, and that Verising realizes what they have done is fundamentally wrong.

18 Sep 2003 | alisha said...

"The not-for-profit Internet Software Consortium (ISC)has issued a patch to cut off Verisigns anti-competitive wildcard DNS trickery at the knees. Background is available at Wired, discussion is going strong at Slashdot, and we understand that Dan Gillmor will be covering the issue in an upcoming column."

from Zelman

18 Sep 2003 | alisha said...

From the wired article:

""The phone has been ringing off the hook with deeply unhappy customers," he (Paul Vixie) said. "We don't have a political ax to grind. Whether VeriSign should or should not have done this is not for us to decide. But we have to respond to our customers who are demanding it."

Vixie said that ISC's customers -- typically ISPs and large enterprises -- needed a fix because VeriSign's Site Finder broke their spam filters.

It sure sounds to me like spam-fighting is being disrupted.
And based on Verisigns track record I wouldnt trust them to be thinking of the publics benefit.

19 Sep 2003 | Matthew Oliphant (formerly fajalar) said...

How did VeriSign coopt Elegant Hack?

Anyone know what happened to Christine's blog/site?

20 Sep 2003 | Randall said...

I suggest a mass migration of domain registration from Verisign.
I have not used them for years and only pay 8.95/year instead of giving Verisign 25.00/year. Let economics speak out loud.

04 Oct 2003 | sitefinder.veri-sign.com said...

Don't get mad, get even!

Look, anyone can profit from others spelling mistakes, its easy!

16 Jan 2004 | Didimus said...

This topic is one we will tackle later in this article, but it refers to making sure that your application and the dock aren't fighting it out for supremacy of the screen.

16 Jan 2004 | Lucas said...

If an application is designed well, the reward for users is that they will learn it faster, accomplish their daily tasks more easily, and have fewer questions for the help desk. As a developer of a well-designed application, your returns on that investment are more upgrade revenue, reduced tech support, better reviews, less documentation, and higher customer satisfaction. The rewards of building a good-looking Aqua application are worth taking the extra time.

16 Jan 2004 | Jerome said...

At WWDC, I listened to Apple representatives make some excellent points about taking the time to build a 100%-compliant Aqua application, and I think all developers need to look beyond the code and listen to what the folks at Apple have to say

08 Nov 2004 | Durffwurzle For President said...

For a Better Tomorrow...Today.

08 Nov 2004 | Durffwurzle For President said...

For a Better Tomorrow...Today.

08 Nov 2004 | Durffwurzle For President said...

For a Better Tomorrow...Today.

08 Nov 2004 | Durffwurzle For President said...

For a Better Tomorrow...Today.

27 Nov 2004 | britney spears naked story said...

britney spears naked story
http://britney-spears-naked.celebrities-portal.info/

18 Feb 2005 | consolidation online said...

7385 Nice site here