Re: VeriSign SMTP reject server updated

[bdragon () gweep net]

> Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 11:34:17AM -0700, ken emery wrote:
> >  
> >
> > > I think you haven't "gotten it".  I'm getting the message from you that
> > > the changes made to the com and net gTLD's are fait accompli.  From the
> > >    
> >
> > That's the exact message I got from Verisign on Thursday. See:
> > http://news.com.com/2100-1024-5078657.html
> >
> > Basically Verisign is willing to tweak the service to make it less
> > controversial but not stop it.
> >  
> Then Verisign is no longer a responsible holder of the data and ICANN 
> sould act to remove their control and invalid data.
>
> / Mat

I wonder what AT&T and InterNap have to say about it as the upstreams
I can see of AS30060. While InterNap has a short but notable career
of letting their customers do whatever they want (such as completely
deaggregate all of their address space down to /24s), I'ld think
AT&T would be somewhat responsible.

I would hope Verisign would abandon their experiment if they received
no ill-gotten gains.