[RFCI-Discuss] wirralnews.com

[Derek J. Balling]

On Sep 7, 2007, at 8:07 AM, Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:
> But you *do* have an authoritative NS set.  It just happens to be
> an empty set.

And there's nothing necessarily "wrong" with an authoritative answer  
which says "there are no NSes" ... it's an unused domain, etc., etc.

> Never mind if this is too complicated to handle in real life. I was
> just trying to help.

This is like the old adage about pornography... the "I can't define  
indecent, but I know it when I see it."   Does this LOOK hinky? Oh  
hell yeah. But can you find it in a programatic/algorithmic manner?  
Ahhhh, that's not NEARLY so easy, without borking lots of other  
ways.... :-/

That's all I've been trying to say from the beginning really... I am  
not claiming the site in question here has made an "honest mistake",  
and I'm not trying to protect them. I'm simply saying that changing  
the algorithm to be able to "catch" them opens up way way more cans of  
worms than could feed all of Hitchcock's birds. ;-)

Cheers,
D

  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2419 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.megacity.org/pipermail/rfci-discuss/attachments/20070907/c2b2b8e3/attachment.bin