At 11:45 AM -0400 2005-05-19, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
No, they don't, but .ws and .gw are not going to be the only ones doing this kind of thing, and this problem won't go away unless something is done to expressly prohibit this kind of behaviour.
Perhaps I left my program in the men's room, but wasn't the point of this thread that "something has already been done to prohibit this"? IE: 2821 says that's an invalid address?
Right now, we're on the fence. There's a piece of paper that says we're supposed to be on one side (and most people are), but there are a number of people who are on the other side. One way or the other, we need to get everyone on the same side of the fence. And we need to make sure that is actually enforced at a very low level within the basic library routines implemented on all OSes. For a short while, it might be convenient to try to fix this problem within the DNS, but I think that's what has gotten us into this mess in the first place. We need to fix this problem, and we need to fix it in the right place. However, regardless of which side of the fence you think we should be on, and where you think the right place is to further discuss this topic, I can assure you that NANOG is not it. -- Brad Knowles, <brad@stop.mail-abuse.org> "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755 SAGE member since 1995. See <http://www.sage.org/> for more info.