Annoying dynamic DNS updates (was Re: someone from attbi please

Sun Sep 28 16:05:36 UTC 2003

> > PS. why is this so hard?
> 
> Are you talking about the kitchen sink protocol called DNS, or ...

Specifically, I want to know why Comcast makes itself so hard to reach.
I'll bet I could get them to talk to me about this host if it were DDoS'ing
me, or if I aggressively NMAP'd it at 25Mbits/sec for 48 hours straight.

But because the problem is "non-serious" they do not even reply to e-mail.
Trouble is, it's *their* definition of "serious" being applied, while *I*
am the one receiving this traffic.

What this has in common spam is that a company wants margin from last mile
transit but won't incur the reasonable and customary costs of policing their
customers.  They expect to get margin on 10,000,000 customers but only incur
"customer care" costs on a 10,000 customer basis.  This is what I meant in
the bad old days when I called spam a form of "cost shifting" or "conversion".
Simply put, because Comcast can't be bothered, everyone else on the 'net pays
their avoided costs in various indirect ways.

In amusement parks there's often a sign saying "you must be at least 42 inches
tall to ride this roller coaster".  Sadly, there is no equivilent in ISPland,
and anybody who can accrete or capture customers is allowed to ride.

> Why is dynamic DNS update enabled by default on some operating systems?

Microsoft's culpability in this mess is not even on my mind today.  They will
at least talk about their role in the situation, so they're more responsible
than Comcast this week.
-- 
Paul Vixie