In short, the particular issue of Verisign adding this functionality is irrelevant because it does not suddenly become a monopoly when it does so - it already is one.
This is not a point of contention. DNS as a protocol (and I have not refreshed my knowledge of the rfc's for this reply) lends itself to this kind of structure. As with other monopoly situations, it is not the existence of monopoly that is the problem, but the abuse of monopoly.
It was just a matter of time before somebody dropped a wildcard in the TLDs, and now you're upset because the bad behavior you've come to expect has been replaced with a different bad behavior. This is no surprise, it was debated and posted anywhere anybody who cares about dns should be reading.
You are confusing me with a full-time admin. I am familiar with these issues, but do not at present, work on network infrastructure full time. It's just a matter of time until everyone dies, but that isn't a good argument for suicide. I also don't quite understand what is this 'bad behavior I've come to expect'.
There is no behaviour that it should have when trying to resolve something that does not exist.
I dunno, when things break, I would expect them to act broken.
How they deal with it is at the discretion of the provider. I should think most people will be happier with a system that attempts to correct their misstyped urls. Yes, they don't know that service is from verisign. So what? The user is not contracted to verisign at point of use, the person who buys the domain is.
As the owner of serveral such domains, and the person with this 'contracted service', I am not happy with them using people who can't spell my website as a vehicle for promoting whatever they wish to promote. So there's your first poll response, I'm curious to see what others like myself think.
If you prefer your urls to use a different TLD where behaviour is different, then you are free to mve it there.
You haven't spent over as much time trying to work with their customer support as I have, I'm guessing. Yes, I am free to move it, but they suck so bad, it's far more economical to just get a new domain. This is not a good solution from any vantage point, especially considering the near necessity of a '.com' or '.net' for any serious internet venture.
The behaviour you expect then is undefined and there is no standard. That verisign have decided to attempt to provide something useful to the vast majority of users in that circumstance is worthy of applause, IMHO.
Perhaps this is the case. They will also shoot to the top of any net monitoring service that uses logs to find out what sites people are visiting. Then there's the millions, if not billions of ad impressions they can sell in exchange for providing something 'useful'...that no one can really avoid.
Also, people are dickheads, if a bogus .com or .net fucks up your setups that bad, you have a seriously fucked up setup. Were these people crying when whateverbullshit.cc would resolve to registrar.cc? Did it fuck up their precious clever secondary mx records or whatever they're yammering about that just exposes their ignorance? Secondary mx records with typos or some shit? "waaa, now we get bounce instead of cannot connect, difficult to diagnose, waaa!" They're fucking retards, set stuff up by the book, use well-supported, standard stuff, and check hostnames when you type them in
I don't know who this strawman is, but you burned him to a crisp. None of this has anything to do with my complaints.
[ Parent ]