I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't.

Thu Mar 15 09:50:07 UTC 2001

At 11:54 PM 3/14/01 -0800, you wrote:

>At 08:33 PM 3/14/2001, Simon Higgs wrote:
>>So what practical steps does New.net need to take to reduce the load on 
>>the help desks? Going out of business, getting rid of the dumb plug-in, 
>>and using a proper root server network have already been suggested. What 
>>else would help minimize the load on the network help desks?
>
>Looks like you already have three practical solutions right there.

Well, two out of three ain't a bad start.

>I won't bother to solve someone else's problems unless I believe in their 
>cause (I don't) or am under their employ (I'm not).

Fair comment. But it's not New.net that will take the hit at the help desk. 
This is like a new neighbor having loud parties disturbing the peace and 
quiet in your neighborhood which was helping your property value. Ignoring 
it and letting the neighborhood go downhill is going to cost you something 
eventually.

>The root of the matter (do pardon the pun) is this:
>
>New.net is trying to change the way the Internet works, without consulting 
>any of the people or organizations that make it work. They have attempted 
>to do this not at the root-server level, where by all accounts it should 
>be done, but at the end-user level, with an OS specific patch(which, I 
>imagine, flummoxes your resolver timeouts and overall decreases DNS 
>usability). In their attempt to reinvent the wheel, they have ignored 
>published standards, paid no attention to history, scoffed at proper 
>channels, pissed on the correct authorities, attempted to strongarm 
>thousands of businesses into playing their way, made silly promises with 
>no hope for realization, and basically left common sense raped and crying 
>in the corner.

No arguments there. This is how marketing folk run networks. Different 
focus entirely. Just be glad Randy Bush doesn't work in an ad agency.

>Their technical specs are fuzzy, with no end in sight for the new TLD's 
>they introduce (go to the homepage- oh look! you can vote for a new TLD! 
>dear god, what a disaster that could turn into... running-shoes.nike is 
>just a few million bucks away).

"Voting" has been done by Name Space for what, four years? Their track 
record isn't exactly astounding, even after plonking down $50k into the 
ICANN travel-junket fund. Voting is not going to set the world on fire. 
It's a marketing tool that makes spectacular collisions in DNS.

>On top of all this, they have the gall to sell a currently-valueless 
>product to unsuspecting consumers (a process some like to call 'fraud') 
>and nowhere bother to mention that their plugin (or any of their 
>windows-specific hacks on http://www.new.net/help_network.tp) will give 
>them root authority for your nameservice needs. Nor do they mention that 
>email sent to your spiffy domain won't work, aside from a tiny 'white lie' 
>on the FAQ page that would make a tobacco lawyer blush. On top of all this 
>virtual piracy and electronic hijacking, they have the temerity to tell 
>interested end-users that if it doesn't work they should "Contact your ISP 
>and ask them to `turn on' access. The steps for an ISP to provide access 
>are rather simple", never implying that there may be a valid reason for us 
>to all[1] say "No way".

Yeah. This is the stuff that I was looking for. Thanks.

>The Readers Digest Analogy:
>
>Just because I think that 10.0.0.0/8 is perfectly good unclaimed space 
>doesn't mean that announcing routes to it is a bright idea.

Hey, I use it all the time. That must make the whole block all mine to 
resell. Hmmm... and I could sell it over and over again. Just kidding. ;-)

Best Regards,

Simon Higgs

--
It's a feature not a bug...