I don't think he was saying that at all. Just stating that from a pure numbers standpoint 50k/140mil is a small percentage. OTOH, I agree to your point - Network Solutions definitely downplayed this in their release. Curiously so. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 20, 2013, at 5:42 PM, RijilV <rijilv@riji.lv> wrote:
On 20 June 2013 14:28, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:08:18 -0700, Jeff Shultz said:
"small number of Network Solutions customers"
They must be staffed with physicists, astronomers, or economists.... I don't know anyone else that would consider "nearly fifty thousand" (from a previous post by Phil Fagan) to be a small number.
It's relatively small when you consider there's something like 140M .com's So it's okay to screw over "nearly fifty thousand" customer domains because there are 140M .com's? When talking about inadvertently effecting that many folks I don't think it is appropriate to trivialize the customer impact by calling it small when you're talking about a handful of large websites that aren't somehow magically shared over those 140M .coms. Also it is untrue to limit it to only "the websites" given how many other things folks are likely to be using DNS for...
.r'