Re: [IP] VeriSign prepares to relaunch "Site Finder" -- calls

[ken emery <ken () cnet com>]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Jason Nealis wrote:

> FWIW,  We had PAXFIRE in over here last week and heard their dog and pony
> on the product, basically they make money by using your customer base and
> diverting them to a search page that they developed with their "partners".  Of
> course they only divert them on failed www lookups.

Okay, they are lying here.  There is no way for them to tell if something
is a "web lookup" or some other type of lookup at this point.  Unless
of course they only divert www.*, and even then other types of services
may be provided by a host with a name of www.*.  So they really can't
make this work without breaking sometihng.

bye,
ken emery
> It's a module plug-in into bind and if you prefer to try and do this in a
> opt-in basis they have a client program that you download and it gets hooked
> into the users browser.
>
> They claim that the embedded MSN search page that you get diverted to by IE
> is making MSN millions and millions of dollars and they want the ISP's to
> get some of that revenue share.
>
>
> Jason Nealis
> RCN INTERNET
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 04:54:51PM -0500, Stephen J. Wilcox stated
> > > > I am curious what the operational impact would be to network operators
> > > > if, instead of Verisign using SiteFinder over all com and net, Verisign
> > > > or their technology partner for SiteFinder began coercing a large number
> > > > of independent ISPs and network operators to install their form of DNS
> > > > redirection at the ISP-level, until all or most of the end-users out
> > > > there were getting redirected.
> > >
> > > It would be no worse than NEW.NET or any other form of DNS pollution/piracy
> > > (like the alternate root whackos), as long as it was clearly labelled.  As
> >
> > Sorry my threading is screwed, something to do with the headers so I missed half
> > the replies.
> >
> > Anyway I just sent an email, I dont think this is the same as the new.net thing,
> > in that case you have an unstable situation of competing roots arising which as
> > it grows or collides the operator community is left to pick up the pieces and
> > complaints.
> >
> > With a local redirection you get to choose that you want it, you dont impose it
> > on other parts of the Internet and given enough clue level your customers can
> > run their own DNS if they object.
> >
> > So with that in mind this is no worse that http caching/smtp redirection or
> > other local forms of subversion..
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > > an occasional operator of infrastructure, I wouldn't like the complaint load
> > > I'd see if the customers of such ISP's thought that *I* was inserting the
> > > garbage they were seeing.  So I guess my hope is, it'll be "opt-in" with an
> > > explicitly held permission for every affected IP address (perhaps using some
> > > kind of service discount or enhancement as the carrot.)