| Who Cares? Really... does it matter if you get a DNS error page or a page from someone else telling you that the server couldn't be found with a few suggestions/ads on it?
Either way, you didn't get where you were going. At least with the former you may have a link right there for you to click on instead of typing it again.
Move on and find some other petty thing to complain about. |
|
claco
join:2002-09-29
Tallmadge, OH | Don't think in just web browser terms. If it were just port 80 browser request that were seeing these false positives for non-existent domains, I wouldn't really care.
It matters because it severely screws with email systems. Now, instead of email bouncing because there is no destination domain, or spam checks working because domains don't exist, email servers are led to believe through these 'false positives' that domains exists, and then accept the emails and fill up trying to send them out. Spam filters and lists now have an even worse time of things because EVERY DNS domain request returns a result when they shouldn't.
--
Six of one, 1,426/2,852 dozen of the other. |
|
|
|
approval from:
whfsdude 
| reply to Skippy25
Exactly, instead of a "This page cannot be displayed" you get a search page which may or may not help YOU. The point is it might help 75% of the less-tech savvy customers, and therefore it's a good idea.
It's not so good when you think of the big ISP getting a few more $$$, and still charging people the extra fees too on our bill.
Is this really something to get upset about??
Here is an Idea for the ISPs! Just like some video sites that show 10 second advert's before the actual video, ISP can start showing webpages with advertisements before directing you to your intended page! What a money maker that would be! They could do it on any page, everytime!!
If HotSpots can redirect you until you pay, they must be able to do this!
(If they do that, then you have a reason to complain, but if you mis-type something, get over it, and correct your spelling.) |
|
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | reply to Skippy25
Petty ? Absolutely not. Tricks like this break DNS and the way it is suppose to work. There's a reason there was such an uproar about Sitefinder and its the same reason there's noise being made about this.
--
Ann Coulter doesn't know jack about science...
"Extremes to the right and left of any political dispute are always wrong." —Dwight Eisenhower |
|
| Claco gave a good reason for being against it. I personally do not use what he says so I will have to take his word for it. Koodo's for the good response Claco. However, I would still argue it is good and another method for your verification needs to be found or developed.
However, you on the other hand can't just come here and say it is broke because it is not. Not getting a DNS error is not broken. I personally think it is an enhancement to DNS and improves MOST customers experience.
Beyond what the inconvenience that Claco pointed out give a valid reason as to why it is "broke". |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | said by Skippy25:Beyond what the inconvenience that Claco pointed out give a valid reason as to why it is "broke". His entire reason given is "why it is broke"...
You may not care, YOU may see it as an enhancement, but to the way "the internet" works, it's broke. Period.
He gave every good answer necessary. Not to mention, it's not acceptable. |
|
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:However, you on the other hand can't just come here and say it is broke because it is not. Not getting a DNS error is not broken. I personally think it is an enhancement to DNS and improves MOST customers experience. Actually, exactly because you are NOT getting an error is THE reason it breaks DNS. DNS depends on a clearly specified standard set of requests and responses. When a zone or record does not exist, there is a proscribed response that is suppose to be given (NXDOMAIN, etc.). Whole slews of applications depend on these rules and specs being followed.
Beyond what the inconvenience that Claco pointed out give a valid reason as to why it is "broke". See above. It breaks DNS, whether you know/admin it or not. Trust me, this comes from someone has the professional pleasure of dealing with DNS daily.
And if you don't believe me, ask another system or network administrator worth their salt and they will give you similar reasons.
--
Ann Coulter doesn't know jack about science...
"Extremes to the right and left of any political dispute are always wrong." —Dwight Eisenhower |
|
davePremium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:7 Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
 ·Verizon Online DSL
1 edit | reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:Not getting a DNS error is not broken. Yes, it is. If you want, you can find testimony from the people who designed the protocol - just look for the brouhaha from when Verisign did that.
However, I would still argue it is good and another method for your verification needs to be found or developed. OK, so we should discard twenty-some years of network application protocols just so Earthlink can mistreat a standard network service how they feel like it?
A fairly typical way to write a certain class of code is this: if you get a name lookup error, tell the user, because he made a mistake. If you get a connection timeout or port-not-listening refusal, quietly retry in the background.
So now we're converting user typing errors into hard-to-diagnose failure modes (for non-web, non-mail, non-ftp applications). What used to result in a name lookup failure now turns into a 'valid' IP address that isn't actually running the intended service.
But, hey, if Earthlink can make a profit, what does it matter if we break twenty years of application code?
Do you actually write network application code? If not, I respectfully suggest you're not qualified to judge the effect of this change. |
|
| Again I do not see how this "breaks" DNS.
You don't get the page you wanted because it does not exist. Correct me if I am wrong but DNS is to resolve the name you type to an IP address. That address does not exist and DNS responds accordingly. Looks to me like DNS name resolution worked perfectly. Just because another party took that error and turned it into something more meaningful to a vast majority of the internet users makes it no less of a negative DNS response.
Now let's discuss another application attempting to use it and not being able to work properly because it doesn't get what it was programmed to get. DNS did just as it was supposed to do which is to indicate the namespace you are looking for does not exist. Unfortunately the mail application couldn't interpret the response properly while any web browser could. Sounds like a mail application problem to me and the application should be fixed or the administrator of the mail server should change their method for resolving addresses. (like maybe using different DNS servers)
Now lets discuss the... it's always been that way and we can't change it argument. This is called innovation and evolution of technology. So find something else petty to complain about. |
|
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | said by Skippy25:Again I do not see how this "breaks" DNS. »livehost.net/article168.html
See the section on authoritative servers for another reason this breaks DNS... Earthlink is acting as an authoritative server for zones it has no right to claim authority over. A clear violation of the DNS paradigm...
Just because another party took that error and turned it into something more meaningful to a vast majority of the internet users makes it no less of a negative DNS response. Incorrect because in the process of returning an error page, the Earthlink servers are returning false data on zones that don't exist. Once again, a violation of it's authority.
Now let's discuss another application attempting to use it and not being able to work properly because it doesn't get what it was programmed to get. DNS did just as it was supposed to do which is to indicate the namespace you are looking for does not exist. No, because to redirect the user to the cutesy page for a non-existent domain, Earthlink will return an IP address. In DNS terms, when you receive an address for a name, you are essentially saying that the lookup was successful, which in this case is incorrect.
Unfortunately the mail application couldn't interpret the response properly while any web browser could. Sounds like a mail application problem to me and the application should be fixed or the administrator of the mail server should change their method for resolving addresses. (like maybe using different DNS servers) Not no, but hell no... Your solution violates the standards of internet. All that does is shift the responsibility to the people who aren't breaking the rules to accommodate the people who are violating the rules. There is no good reason that I should have to patch all of my mail servers because one rogue company decides it knows better than the majority of the experts in the field.
Now lets discuss the... it's always been that way and we can't change it argument. This is called innovation and evolution of technology. So find something else petty to complain about. This isn't innovation and it isn't the evolution of technology... This is a company going rogue with respect to the rules and standards of the internet. There's a reason those standards and rules are in place.
I'm sorry you view this as a "petty" thing to argue about, but the fact that at least three network/systems admin-type people (including myself) have said that this is wrong indicates that there is something seriously wrong with doing this.
Like I said, any systems/network admin worth his salt isn't going to side with you on this issue for the reasons already outlined.
--
Ann Coulter doesn't know jack about science...
"Extremes to the right and left of any political dispute are always wrong." —Dwight Eisenhower |
|
davePremium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:7 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·Verizon Online DSL
2 edits | reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:Again I do not see how this "breaks" DNS. You don't get the page you wanted because it does not exist. You keep talking about "pages". There's no such thing in DNS.
If I write an application, and the user configures a non-existent name, then I expect gethostbyname() to return "no such name".
I do not expect it to return the address of some random system that does not implement the expected protocol.
These are the rules I've understood to be operative in the last 20 years or so.
Correct me if I am wrong but DNS is to resolve the name you type to an IP address. That address does not exist and DNS responds accordingly. You're wrong.
What is supposed to happen is that DNS should return "no such name".
Instead, it pretends the name exists, and returns the address of some system I've never heard of.
If the application then connects via HTTP, the HTTP server at that address will serve up some sort of web page. Very nice for HTTP.
If the application then connects via SMTP, the mail server will (I presume) say "no such user" at the appropriate juncture in the protocol, and mail sort of works, but differently from what it did before.
Maybe there's a similar thing for the ftp protocol.
But for any other protocol -- let's say the mind file system protocol, since I guarantee no-one has implemented that -- then the "bogus address" will not have a server and cannot deliver an appropriate response. They don't even know the goddamn encoding of a mind file system response, so they can't respond to it.
Looks to me like DNS name resolution worked perfectly. Just because another party took that error and turned it into something more meaningful to a vast majority of the internet users makes it no less of a negative DNS response. No. The correct response for a non-existent name is to return a "nonexistent name" error.
A name-to-address service that lies to its client is broken.
A service definition not only describes what happens in the 'success' case (for DNS, looking up a known name), it describes what happens in 'failure' causes (like looking up a name that is not known). Returning an address for an unknown name is just as much a violation as not returning an address for a known name.
Sounds like a mail application problem to me and the application should be fixed or the administrator of the mail server should change their method for resolving addresses. Yes. Every piece of application code written in the last 20 years should be reworked because some idiot fails to return "unknown name" in response to an unknown name, but instead pretends that the name is valid.
This is precisely the objection.
Now lets discuss the... it's always been that way and we can't change it argument. This is called innovation and evolution of technology. So find something else petty to complain about. No, let's discuss the fact that the internet holds together because the implementors agree to implement standard protocols in a standard way so that systems can interoperate in a predictable way.
Innovators are free to implement any damn service they want, no matter how twisted. What they're not free to do is to implement a variation of DNS that violates the protocol definition, and then call it "DNS" and foist it on people that are connecting to a DNS service.
You've got some balls to say that the people who put the Internet together (which doesn't include me) are afraid of "innovation" !
Since we're fond of car analogies at this site -- why don't you unilaterally start driving on the left-hand side of the road? I know the standard in the USA is to drive on the right, but hell, why not innovate? There might be a few interoperability problems to start with, but everyone else will have to adapt. |
|
| reply to Skippy25
you really ae not listening. DNS does not just resolve names. It also communicates important information to the requesting party if the name does not exist, information that is very specific in what it is supposed to say. When someone arbitrarily changes what that message is, that is, omits it altogether and hijacks you to their site, then the system has broken down, and as has been pointed out, specifically mail servers really really need this specific information in order to operate properly. It's (almost) like if your gas guage suggested you might want to stop at Bk instead of warning you that you were running out of gas. Where would you end up? Mail servers carry an enormous amount of the internet load. You might not care, but a lot of people do. What you are suggesting is that we simply break the system for the dummys, and screw the people who really know what they need to get done. |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:This is called innovation and evolution of technology. this is not innovation. this is greedy bastardization. fuk earthlink. they obviously didn't learn anything from the verislime fiasco. |
|
| reply to dave
Wow you sure had a lot to say there, but what is stopping you from redirecting your DNS queries to another server?
Does a redirection even affect applications outside of HTTP request (mail appears to work one user said)? What is stopping innovation from going to only HTTP being affected? Oh that's right.... it's been like that for the 20 years you know of so why move on.
DNS is not perfect, maybe determining the type of name request would be an improvement. |
|
sirghostcitywide
join:2005-07-23
Phoenix, AZ | reply to exactly11
The whole point behind this entire arguement is that WE do not like being taken to a place that SHOULD not be done WITHOUT our consent. When i mistype an address I would like to be told that i mistyped it by telling me it does not exisist. Now for those who are not tech savvy, yes it would be nice to be directed to a page that shows you options for what you may have ment to go to. BUT MAKE IT AN OPTION NOT SOMETHING BY DEFAULT. And to you, dns works by saying www.something.com = 1.1.1.1 or some other such ip address. That is how i want it to work unless i tell it to otherwise. That is how it was working 20 years ago, that is how i want it to work now... |
|
 TA63ST215WPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-23
there
kudos:2 | reply to tbriansmall
Fixed your quote for you 
I can't really imagine it is anything else.
--
The alphabet is my favourite group of letters in the whole world.
|
|
davePremium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:7 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·Verizon Online DSL
1 edit | reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:Does a redirection even affect applications outside of HTTP request (mail appears to work one user said)? What is stopping innovation from going to only HTTP being affected? Oh that's right.... it's been like that for the 20 years you know of so why move on. It's DNS. DNS has nothing to do with HTTP. You can't tell from a DNS query that the application intends to talk HTTP. That's the whole problem.
You're framing this as me being 'against innovation', but my argument is that they shouldn't break a basic Internet protocol just to benefit web users. If it could be confined to web users, that would be more-or-less ok. But the protocol does not carry enough information for anyone to make that distinction.
said by Skippy25:DNS is not perfect, maybe determining the type of name request would be an improvement. Yes, that's the sort of innovation that would actually make some sense.
As it stands, DNS mostly resolves 'network layer' names - you get an IP address (MX would seem to be an exception).
What a service like this needs is to handle 'transport layer' names (mapping to IP address, protocol, port number). Given such an arrangement, you could reply with the address of a web server if it was a name lookup from a web app, or with 'no such name' if it was one of these protocols that I'm more worried about.
The trouble is, that requires client code. As such, it's hard to unilaterally declare you've got a new service. You need to either write code for all clients, or persuade client implementors that you're on to a good thing. (This last is what the Internet RFC mechanism is all about). |
|
 winkyTurn Left At The Moon
join:2001-02-11
Saint Louis, MO | reply to dave
Oh Dave, save your breath. This guy probably learned all he needed to know about economics in seventh grade civics class just like he already knows all about the interweb now. 
--
From this point forward Hoedown, from the ballet RODEO, by Aaron Copeland will not be reffered to as "The Beef Song". Thank You |
|
bruce5
join:2003-01-16
Tustin, CA | reply to Skippy25
I'm not on either earthlink or msn, but windoes does pretty much the same thing. Instead of 404 I often get a page from msn saying it couldn't find what I was looking for and maybe they can help me with their targeted advertisements. It bugs me but personally I would feel a lot more comfortable if I could figure out how to redirect it to google.
(I know, there is no logical reason why MSN's ads are any better or worse than google's. It's just a personal preference that I ought to be able to set.) |
|
davePremium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:7 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by bruce5:I'm not on either earthlink or msn, but windoes does pretty much the same thing. Instead of 404 I often get a page from msn saying it couldn't find what I was looking for and maybe they can help me with their targeted advertisements. That's fine, though. It's done in the web browser. It's under control of the user. It doesn't affect any other application.
It bugs me but personally I would feel a lot more comfortable if I could figure out how to redirect it to google. Why not just turn it off?
Tools, Internet Options, Searching -> "do not search from address bar". |
|
