Re: VeriSign SMTP reject server updated

[ken emery <ken () cnet com>]

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, neal rauhauser wrote:

>  Oh come on people, this guy *implements* stuff. Here he is on the list
> describing how he has implemented something to alleviate the problems
> caused by PHBs at Verisign.

He is a representative of Verisign and asked for feedback.  He
has gotten some.  I honestly think that the person who made the
decision to implement the A records thought the internet was only
"web" and thus everything would be just great and Verisign would
take in all sorts of advertising money and nothing else would
happen.

>  ISC bind mods, ICANN displeasure, and other sources of pressure will
> either remove this issue or make it irrelevant.

Doubtful, the dollar number I heard was $100 million/year.  Verisign
won't let a bind mod get in their way with that much money at stake.
They will do everything in their power to keep this in place.

>   Rather than bashing someone who is doing something positive we should
> see if we can paypal him $$$ for a box of tacks so he can mine the
> chairs of the tack head marketing weasels who decided this would be a
> good idea ...

I wrote a response to Matt (it went to the list).  I used the
directives "Verisign" and "you" a bit interchanably.  They both
were to mean the same thing, Verisign the company, not Matt
Larson the person.  I think the other responses I've seen so
far were much the same.  I'm hoping Matt doesn't take any of
this personally.

bye,
ken emery


> Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> > > One piece of feedback we received multiple times after the
> > > addition of the wildcard A record to the .com/.net zones
> > > concerned snubby, our SMTP mail rejection server.
> >
> > Did you miss the other pieces of feedback about how wildcard records in .com
> > and .net are simply a bad idea for numerous reasons?
> >
> > > We would like to state for the record that the only purpose
> > > of this server is to reject mail immediately to avoid its
> > > remaining in MTA queues throughout the Internet.  We are
> > > specifically not retaining, nor do we have any intention to
> > > retain, any email addresses from these SMTP transactions.
> >
> > Right. We can't trust you to do the right thing with regard to the wildcards
> > themselves, so now we have to trust you when you tell us what your SMTP
> > server does. Why should we trust you, again?
> >
> > > I would welcome feedback on these options sent to me
> > > privately or the list; I will summarize the former.
> >
> > I'll take "the list", even though I'm sure it'll get beaten to death by the
> > time I check my mailbox again.
> >
> > Matthew Kaufman
> > matthew () eeph com
> >
> > Ps. Are you planning on operating servers which reject, with proper status
> > codes, every other common service that might be found at an Internet
> > address?
>
> --
> mailto:neal () lists rauhauser net
> phone:402-301-9555
> "After all that I've been through, you're the only one who matters,
> you never left me in the dark here on my own" - Widespread Panic