[dns-operations] The strange case of fox.com
anne-marie.eklund-lowinder at iis.se
Mon Mar 7 11:57:27 UTC 2016
Was it the word "customer" who created the bounce? :)
> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> Från: dns-operations [mailto:dns-operations-bounces at dns-oarc.net] För
> Warren Kumari
> Skickat: den 7 mars 2016 12:24
> Till: Dave Warren <davew at hireahit.com>; dns-operations at dns-oarc.net
> Ämne: Re: [dns-operations] The strange case of fox.com
> Apparently I said a rude word in the below, because I got the following
> This email has violated the PROFANITY.
> and Pass has been taken on 3/6/2016 1:14:41 PM.
> Message details:
> Server: BUPMEXCASHUB1
> Sender: warren at kumari.net <mailto:warren at kumari.net> ;
> Recipient: davew at hireahit.com <mailto:davew at hireahit.com> ;dns-
> operations at dns-oarc.net <mailto:dns-operations at dns-oarc.net> ;
> Subject: Re: [dns-operations] The strange case of fox.com <http://fox.com/>
> Apologies if my saying "pissed off customers" shocked anyone.
> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 6:08 PM Warren Kumari <warren at kumari.net
> <mailto:warren at kumari.net> > wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 9:04 PM Dave Warren
> <davew at hireahit.com <mailto:davew at hireahit.com> > wrote:
> On 2016-03-04 07:05, Rich Goodson wrote:
> > Also, who is to say that I can't have a
> misconfigured domain if I want to?
> Probably your domain registration agreement
> would be an appropriate
> place for this language.
> >> Sure, some tiny percentage of domains might
> pack it up and take up a
> >> new hobby, but for any business that wants
> people to pay their bills,
> >> buy their services, view their ads, or
> otherwise do the things that
> >> justify the expense of a having an internet
> presence, they'll hire
> >> someone competent and fix the issue.
> > It appears that they hired someone competent
> who fixed it some 18
> > months later.
> Right, and for those 18 months that someone
> else had a misconfiguration,
> you and I hear from our customers, waste our
> customer service resources
> and technical resources dealing with someone
> else's misconfiguration.
> That's not acceptable. I want to cost-shift the fix
> back to the party
> that 1) has an incentive to make the site work,
> and 2) caused the
> problem in the first place.
> By placing a very real cost on misconfigurations
> that is paid by whoever
> set up the misconfigured domain it will become
> more practical to
> configure things properly than to stick with a
> "werks fer me!" attitude
> leaving the rest of us to explain to customer
> after customer why someone
> else's domain doesn't really work.
> > Plus, my job title at the time was not, "Person
> Assigned To Attempt To
> > Make Improvements To The Internet". My job
> (or about 15% of my job)
> > was to make sure our customers could resolve
> DNS. After multiple days
> > spent imitating Don Quixote on this issue
> already, my fake delegation
> > "fixed" the problem, at least for my
> customers. I had no more time to
> > spend on the issue.
> This is true, except for the "no more time to
> spend on the issue" --
> You'll spend more time on this issue tomorrow,
> and the day after, and
> the day after that, every time you run into yet
> another misconfigured
> domain. Also, your fake delegation will fail one
> day too, when the
> domain switches hosting providers and suddenly
> your fake delegation is
> wrong while the domain itself is finally correct
> for once.
> And this is the whole point, you, me, and
> everyone else who runs a
> resolver shouldn't have to jump through hoops
> to make random domains
> work, or hear whining about how a website
> works properly on other
> networks but not ours when we're running
> standards compliant software.
> Rather than spending multiple days on such an
> issue, it would be quite
> convenient if registries or registrars did this
> automatically and
> notified their customers of problems, and if it
> goes unresolved, dropped
> the delegation.
> However, registries and registrars make their money (and they
> claim very little) from selling domains. Their view is that a: this is extra work
> and costs money and b: results in pissed off customers.
> They have no real inventive to do this -- if you want this done,
> it will require a fundamental shift in culture / incentives, or a requirement in
> registry / registrar requirements. If you would like to make this happen
> (which I think would be great), you will have to show up at ICANN meetings -
> this requires much sitting on planes (I'm currently in one in Marrakech), and
> listening to much navel gazing and pontification...
> I'm guessing that it is less annoying / cheaper to just live with
> the problem... almost like this was by design :-P
> Dave Warren
> dns-operations mailing list
> dns-operations at lists.dns-oarc.net <mailto:dns-
> operations at lists.dns-oarc.net>
> dns-jobs mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 182 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the dns-operations