From: Peter Dambier (no email)
Date: Thu Jun 02 2005 - 05:48:39 EDT
wrote:
> Apparently, the ICANN crew are finally doing *something* (even if they're
> doing so while not having read RFC3675):
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/06/01/internet.porn.ap/index.html
>
> Hopefully none of their 10 conflict with any of your 2000, and nobody
> will have to go re-read RFC2826 just yet.....
I am not afraid of ICANN. They are predictable and fast as an iceberg.
Chinese governements are far less predictable but they try to be ICANN
compatible.
I am really afraid of Microsoft:
Last time they have broken "localhost" now they do it again with "local" and
what new toplevel domains next windows update will bring - not even Bill
Gates knows.
"local" did collide! What ever you answer for "*.local" will break their
directory services. The only reliable solution seems to be:
$TTL 2D
$ORIGIN local.
@ 2D SOA dns.cp.msft.net. msnhst.microsoft.com. 2005053100 300600 2419200 3600
MX 10 maila.microsoft.com.
MX 10 mailb.microsoft.com.
MX 10 mailc.microsoft.com.
TXT "v=spf1 mx redirect=_spf.microsoft.com"
NS ns1.msft.net.
NS ns2.msft.net.
NS ns3.msft.net.
NS ns4.msft.net.
NS ns5.msft.net.
ns1.msft.net. A 207.46.245.230
ns2.msft.net. A 64.4.25.30
ns3.msft.net. A 213.199.144.151
ns4.msft.net. A 207.46.66.75
ns5.msft.net. A 207.46.138.20
I guess that would solve the "localhost" problem too - but it does not give
the right answer :)
Reagards,
Peter and Karin Dambier
Public-Root
|
|
|