From owner-freebsd-questions Mon Apr 7 17:48:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA05672 for questions-outgoing; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 17:48:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mixcom.mixcom.com (mixcom.mixcom.com [198.137.186.100]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA05667 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 17:48:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mixcom.mixcom.com (8.6.12/2.2) id TAA04729; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 19:49:15 -0500 Received: from p75.mixcom.com(198.137.186.25) by mixcom.mixcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma004697; Tue Apr 8 00:49:08 1997 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970407194232.00c450c8@mixcom.com> X-Sender: sysop@mixcom.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 19:42:33 -0500 To: cmcurtin@research.megasoft.com From: "Jeffrey J. Mountin" Subject: Re: www.edns.com Cc: Steven Ames , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk At 12:41 AM 4/7/97 -0400, C Matthew Curtin wrote: >I'm actually not terribly pleased that IAHC is going to add new TLDs. >The system is fine as it is, but the problem is that it isn't being >used as it was designed, and now, instead of doing something that >makes sense, people are out there registering dozens of domain names, >creating a horrible waste of the namespace, etc. Adding more TLDs >isn't going to fix this: it just make the namespace wider... It's >only a matter of time before we're facing the same problem >again... Then what, add more TLDs? Allowing someone to register a TLD isn't a good idea. Some the extensions were logical, but I think the whole idea came about due to the fact that many businesses consider the "name" of something to mean a lot. >No, I think that the namespace should be given out a little less >freely, at least in the "big" three-letter TLDs... Not only is having >lots of TLDs gross and difficult to make sense of, but it does create >more load on the root nameservers. (Not in the number of requests, of >course, this will increase as long as the number of DNS lookups >increases, but it will increase the size of the tables of domains and >their associated root nameservers that need to be maintained.) I can not agree more with the first point. All these fly-by-night places that mass mail and let the domain die. It should be required that the domain is paid, before it is activated. More TLD's mean that I have to update tables for our mail proxy. >I'd be perfectly happy to see the TLDs all go away, except for the >two-letter country code domains, and ".int"... I don't see it happening, I just hope that it doesn't get out of control, otherwise it may start to look like a listing of newsgroups. ------------------------------------------- Jeff Mountin - System/Network Administrator jeff@mixcom.net MIX Communications Serving the Internet since 1990