Re: [DNSOP] Public Suffix List

Gervase Markham <> Mon, 09 June 2008 15:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C5C63A6C66; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 08:57:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1C913A6A94 for <>; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 08:57:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.52
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.051, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_RMML_Stock10=0.13]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pHcaJc2TlGvf for <>; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 08:57:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5E1D3A6C66 for <>; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 08:57:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([] helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <>) id 1K5jig-0000hv-JT; Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:55:42 +0100
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:57:32 +0100
From: Gervase Markham <>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 3.0a1 (X11/2008050714)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Conrad <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: -17
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Public Suffix List
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

David Conrad wrote:
>> however, my view is that getting comprehensive buy-in
>> would take quite a lot more time and effort than this method.
> is the common excuse that results in lots of broken crap on the
> Internet.  It is sad to see the same mistake repeated again and again.

Prove me wrong, then. You can send a message to the Technical Contacts
of all 284 domains (I can supply you with a list) saying "Please set up
a resilient, highly-available web service to provide current data on
your registration structure." See what sort of reaction you get.

>>> How can non-TLD's get into this list!?
>> Just by asking; I already got an email from CentralNIC.
> If there is no vetting, doesn't this defeat the purpose?

Who says there's no vetting?

How does adding e.g. CentralNIC defeat the purpose? In some ways, it is
the purpose; CentralNIC customers will no longer be able to conspire to
damage users privacy, and if users accidentally mis-set cookies, other
CentralNIC customers can't steal them.

DNSOP mailing list