Re: [DNSOP] Public Suffix List

Gervase Markham <> Wed, 11 June 2008 11:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A71A3A6AC5; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:26:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C56D3A6AB8 for <>; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.987
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.987 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.628, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_LWSHORTT=1.24]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j0RCRkSJZYn4 for <>; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7F4A3A6AA8 for <>; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:26:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([] helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <>) id 1K6OQT-0006w1-L2; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 12:25:14 +0100
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 12:25:23 +0100
From: Gervase Markham <>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 3.0a1 (X11/2008050714)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Wes Hardaker <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Received-SPF: none ( domain of does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip= helo=[]
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: -18
Cc:, Ted Lemon <>
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

Wes Hardaker wrote:
> * We, mozilla, obviously can't do this ourselves

On the contrary. We have done it for ourselves.

>   so you must do it for
>   us or else negative things will happen (and you'll be at fault, not
>   us, mozilla).  Please continue to do this work for us till the end of
>   time.  Oh, and we need it immediately.

We don't need it immediately. The first Firefox 3 security release will
probably be in six to eight weeks.

> * We, mozilla, won't work on any other solution because we don't think
>   it'll work or it'll take too much effort and we refuse to help out in
>   those ventures even if they might be better.  Please stop talking
>   about alternatives as we don't want your opinions on them.

It's not true that we won't work on any other solution. This is what we
have now, and there have been no alternative proposals which (to my
mind) look like producing anything workable in the short term.

Half this list seems to think that getting all the TLDs to agree on or
do anything is an enterprise doomed to failure, and the other half seem
to think that we should be waiting for all the TLD operators to agree to
set up their own repositories of the data. There is a contradiction there.

DNSOP mailing list