NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Message-ID:
Sender:
NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Timothe Litt <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 8 Jul 2014 10:51:23 -0400
Content-Type:
multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms070309090604050702090403"
MIME-Version:
1.0
Reply-To:
Timothe Litt <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (901 bytes) , smime.p7s (5 kB)
I haven't been following things here for a while, so sorry if this has
already been noticed.

If not, here's a case of judicial interference with the DNS, coupled
with incompetent 'solutions'.

This is highly relevant to the ncsg constituency as many non-commercial
users live with dynamic IP addresses, using services such as no-ip to
have stable names in the DNS.

Of course, our terms of membership can be read to exclude these users -
but note that there's nothing to prevent a similar action being taken
against direct holders of domain names...

Here's the story:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/01/sorry_chaps_microsoft_unborks_legitimate_noip_users_domains/

The comments provide more detail - which for technical readers is tragic.

-- 
Timothe Litt
ACM Distinguished Engineer
--------------------------
This communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's views,
if any, on the matters discussed. 




ATOM RSS1 RSS2