Re: [DNSOP] Public Suffix List

David Conrad <> Mon, 09 June 2008 15:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 976C23A6A5A; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 08:44:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56C563A6A5A for <>; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 08:44:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.469
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_RMML_Stock10=0.13]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A8mtUL27c1rq for <>; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 08:44:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B8213A6784 for <>; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 08:44:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F71F23787A; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 08:45:12 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <>
From: David Conrad <>
To: Gervase Markham <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v924)
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 08:45:11 -0700
References: <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.924)
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


On Jun 9, 2008, at 4:48 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Fortunately, Firefox has an extremely good and fast update and uptake
> rate. This is partly because we don't give users a choice about taking
> non-major-version updates.

And how does this update/update rate take into account folks who use  
your product behind firewalls and/or who are constrained by policy to  
not update/upgrade?  Or the folks that disable the version probe?

Broken crap on the Internet has a half-life measured in decades.   
We've learned time after time that static lists of dynamic data  
compiled into globally distributed programs are simply a bad idea and  

> 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.

>> 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?


DNSOP mailing list