[dns-operations] The strange case of fox.com

Mon Mar 7 11:57:27 UTC 2016

Was it the word "customer" who created the bounce? :)

Anne-Marie 

> -----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
> bounce:
> 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.
> 
> W
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 	Indeed.
> 
> 	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
> 
> 	W
> 
> 
> 
> 		--
> 		Dave Warren
> 		http://www.hireahit.com/
> 		http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejwarren
> 
> 
> 
> 	_______________________________________________
> 		dns-operations mailing list
> 		dns-operations at lists.dns-oarc.net <mailto:dns-
> operations at lists.dns-oarc.net>
> 		https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-
> operations
> 		dns-jobs mailing list
> 		https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-
> jobs
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 182 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.dns-oarc.net/pipermail/dns-operations/attachments/20160307/9206593b/attachment.sig>