dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | reply to ColorBASIC
Re: Lame but unavoidable, all ISPs are whores Am I missing something here? I know it's a little annoying to be redirected after mistyping a URL, but as often as not you end up at a link farm anyways even without the redirect.
Unless it's causing actual problems aside from the minor annoyance of being redirected instead of a 404 error, I don't understand the outrage. |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Wow! And you work for one of the major ISPs?
Maybe people like using their own default search engines which open up on a 404.
Maybe people like to have less spam and for their filters to work correctly and fail.
There are a number of 'technical' reasons why this is a horrible idea and why it's CONSTANTLY under scrutiny when ever any greedy company does this... It's not the job of an ISP to redirect traffic ANYWHERE other than where the user has intended OR mis-intended.
But seriously, I certainly am not surprised someone in your position wouldn't get it.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-reitchous and lazy..." |
|
 nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | reply to dynodb
said by dynodb:Am I missing something here? I know it's a little annoying to be redirected after mistyping a URL, but as often as not you end up at a link farm anyways even without the redirect. Unless it's causing actual problems aside from the minor annoyance of being redirected instead of a 404 error, I don't understand the outrage. For most home users, it doesn't cause a problem. Where it causes real heartburn is if they do it to business subscribers. Outside of that, it's mostly a "principles" thing.
--
Everyday, thousands of new cars are delivered to their new owners with poorly-selected radio station presets. |
|
dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | reply to fiberguy
Oh no! I was redirected to an ISP page instead of a 404 error! The humanity! Now I'll have to look at an ISP page instead of a 404 screen for the 5 seconds it takes to retype the URL! The horror! 
I can see how it would minor annoyance in the rare occasion that you mistype a URL, but the "OMG GREEDY EVIL ISP BASTARDS!" outrage seems disproportionate over what seems to me to be a pretty minor issue- especially when there are painless ways around it.
I'm pretty ambivalent about the whole thing; the complaints seem not to revolve around any technical problems caused, but by the fact that their using this to make a few extra bucks.
And just exactly how does this affect spam filters? |
|
dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | reply to nixen
Well, since no one surfs the web while at work, it shouldn't be a problem  |
|
nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | said by dynodb:Well, since no one surfs the web while at work, it shouldn't be a problem Has nothing to do with that. Has to do with the problems it can cause for infrastructure systems.
--
Everyday, thousands of new cars are delivered to their new owners with poorly-selected radio station presets. |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to dynodb
Again, it's funny that you don't understand that...
You're wrong. Maybe in THIS particular forum people are focusing on the ads and the revenue, but just about every one in the past (usually posted on weekdays) HAVE in fact focused on the technical aspect of the DNS redirects.
The beauty of computers and websites with databased forums is you can look it up.. it's been talked about in great length here.
And, as I stated, it's NOT the job of the ISP to redirect mistyped domains.. it's not the point about the ads. The ISP are, in a single switch, disabling features of the web browser and the end user's software when they redirect all 404s to THEIR page. As I stated, when if I want to search from my address bar? The redirect takes that away. When spam filters do a reverse look up on the domain from spoofed emails, it reverts back and the domain resolves. There are MANY technical reasons why this is a bad idea.
If it was such a great thing, then why are they providing alternate DNS? Why was Network Solutions told to knock it off?
There are plenty of reasons why ISPs need to keep their hands off of 404 pages.
As I said, TODAY it may be focused on the ads and the "few bucks" but in every other posting it has all been about the technical aspect of it all.
"Oh no! I was redirected to an ISP page instead of a 404 error! The humanity! Now I'll have to look at an ISP page instead of a 404 screen for the 5 seconds it takes to retype the URL! The horror! "
I'm sure that all of the ISP suits are saying the same thing while on their way out to the country club for a liquid lunch and game of golf while "not getting it" either.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-reitchous and lazy..." |
|
zerog
join:2002-02-10
Carrollton, TX
kudos:1
1 edit | Ok, somebody help me out.. I'm confused about this tangential 404 thread. I was under the assumption that this was about "dns redirection upon failed dns lookups" which would seemingly have little to do with 404 errors or http redirection. |
|
zerog
join:2002-02-10
Carrollton, TX
kudos:1 | reply to nixen
Can someone post some specific examples of what this will break exactly?
In most corporate VPN scenarios, the corporate DNS servers are used during the VPN session and (usually) all traffic is routed through the corporate network.
I am certainly against such a practice unless the customers are fully aware and the practice can benefit the customer somehow (ie, through price breaks, increased speeds, etc) |
|
|
|
nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | said by zerog:Can someone post some specific examples of what this will break exactly? Authoritative report presented to ICANN.
said by zerog:In most corporate VPN scenarios, the corporate DNS servers are used during the VPN session and (usually) all traffic is routed through the corporate network. Not every business runs their own DNS. Not even most do. Aside from that, if the connectivity provider decides that they well do a transparent proxy of port 53 traffic to capture DNS queries, your results will be modified, regardless of whether you run your own server.
said by zerog:I am certainly against such a practice unless the customers are fully aware "Effective immediately, the following change will be made. You have no recourse."
said by zerog:and the practice can benefit the customer somehow (ie, through price breaks, increased speeds, etc) Get real.
--
Everyday, thousands of new cars are delivered to their new owners with poorly-selected radio station presets. |
|
cghh
join:2001-01-15
Milpitas, CA | reply to dynodb
said by dynodb:I can see how it would minor annoyance in the rare occasion that you mistype a URL, but the "OMG GREEDY EVIL ISP BASTARDS!" outrage seems disproportionate over what seems to me to be a pretty minor issue- especially when there are painless ways around it. And just exactly how does this affect spam filters? Other than short-circuiting your personal choice of a "404 handler" in your browser, the biggest problem with this perversion of DNS is a result of the fact that the Internet is a whole lot more than the World Wide Web!!! ALL Internet services that use DNS are broken by this behavior, not just web browsers; they can no longer handle unresolved DNS addresses in their own way, like trying alternative addresses and such.
Concerning spam filters, one common kind of filtering to verify that the From address is an existing domain, and with this broken behavior, ALL addresses come back "existing". |
|
| Check the original forum post from charterengr  .
»Gulf Coast test info
"These enhanced error results are designed to help the average user more quickly reach their web destinations, and only affect web page responses ('A' records to those in the know)." |
|
 dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | reply to dynodb
said by dynodb:Am I missing something here? I know it's a little annoying to be redirected after mistyping a URL, but as often as not you end up at a link farm anyways even without the redirect. Unless it's causing actual problems aside from the minor annoyance of being redirected instead of a 404 error, I don't understand the outrage. because a 404 isn't generating revenue off our backs which we see none of and you know how slow cox's DNS can be. i dont want 75% of my lookups to annoy me.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth |
|
dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy:Again, it's funny that you don't understand that... You're wrong. Maybe in THIS particular forum people are focusing on the ads and the revenue, but just about every one in the past (usually posted on weekdays) HAVE in fact focused on the technical aspect of the DNS redirects. The beauty of computers and websites with databased forums is you can look it up.. it's been talked about in great length here. And, as I stated, it's NOT the job of the ISP to redirect mistyped domains.. it's not the point about the ads. The ISP are, in a single switch, disabling features of the web browser and the end user's software when they redirect all 404s to THEIR page. As I stated, when if I want to search from my address bar? The redirect takes that away. When spam filters do a reverse look up on the domain from spoofed emails, it reverts back and the domain resolves. There are MANY technical reasons why this is a bad idea. If it was such a great thing, then why are they providing alternate DNS? Why was Network Solutions told to knock it off? There are plenty of reasons why ISPs need to keep their hands off of 404 pages. As I said, TODAY it may be focused on the ads and the "few bucks" but in every other posting it has all been about the technical aspect of it all. "Oh no! I was redirected to an ISP page instead of a 404 error! The humanity! Now I'll have to look at an ISP page instead of a 404 screen for the 5 seconds it takes to retype the URL! The horror! If its not about the ads[sponsored which cox gets paid for] why not leave it alone or redir to cox.net? because there's no MONEY in that. uh huh uh huh.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth |
|
cghh
join:2001-01-15
Milpitas, CA
3 edits | reply to IPingUPing
said by IPingUPing:Check the original forum post from charterengr . » Gulf Coast test info"These enhanced error results are designed to help the average user more quickly reach their web destinations, and only affect web page responses ('A' records to those in the know)." It may not effect the MX (Mail eXchange) records, but when there is no MX record for a host, e-mail systems fall back to look for A records, so the mail system will still be confused by the broken behavior. And essentially all other Internet services, such as FTP, telnet, and so on, look for A records. 'A' records are the generic result of a host name lookup, and are not specific in any way to web browsers, and have been used from the time the DNS system was invented, long before http was around. Saying that the change only effects web page responses is just plain wrong. |
|
