Re: whois breakage

[Joshua Goodall <joshua () roughtrade net>]

I would contend that it *is* broken, because it doesn't DWIM (I can see
people pouting already), and that there should be an implied $ on the end
of any search-string, since dns become more specific to the left.

I don't see an argument in favour of free-form searches in this database.
Spoof entries like these, however, are an argument against them.

J

On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Timothy Hunt wrote:

> That's not broken.  One is a host record for a terrorists.net host.
> And it's NOT "enough said".
>
> The response also says:
> To single out one record, look it up with "xxx", where xxx is one of the
> of the records displayed above. If the records are the same, look them up
> with "=xxx" to receive a full display for each record.
>
> So, if you do whois -h whois.internic.net =microsoft.com
> you get the respose you expected.
>
> regards,
>
> Timothy Hunt
> XO Communications
> > $ whois -h whois.internic.net microsoft.com
> >
> > Whois Server Version 1.3
> >
> > Domain names in the .com, .net, and .org domains can now be registered
> > with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
> > for detailed information.
> >
> > MICROSOFT.COM.IS.SECRETLY.RUN.BY.ILLUMINATI.TERRORISTS.NET
> > MICROSOFT.COM
> >
> >
> > Enough said. Similar for apple.com. The web-based whois client at
> > nsiregistry.com is giving correct results, as are the gtld-servers, as
> > does -h networksolutions.com
> >
> > FreeBSD and at least one release of Linux I've tested query
> > whois.internic.net by default. If anyone is using automated whois in
> > production (very likely), check your results!
> >
> > J