From owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 25 01:47:27 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3BF7106567E for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 01:47:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from steve@ibctech.ca) Received: from smtp.ibctech.ca (v6.ibctech.ca [IPv6:2607:f118::b6]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 571248FC1A for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 01:47:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 84471 invoked by uid 89); 25 Feb 2010 01:52:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.114?) (steve@ibctech.ca@::ffff:208.70.104.100) by ::ffff:208.70.104.210 with ESMTPA; 25 Feb 2010 01:52:03 -0000 Message-ID: <4B85D6BD.5020801@ibctech.ca> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 20:47:41 -0500 From: Steve Bertrand User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chuck Swiger References: <4B82F976.8020308@yazzy.org> <02A33D5D-B57A-4276-A79F-C368A0407A33@mac.com> <4B834E4F.2000900@FreeBSD.org> <9530C81B-0640-47D0-915B-AD1B4F5FF3DE@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <9530C81B-0640-47D0-915B-AD1B4F5FF3DE@mac.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: 'FreeBSD-ISP' , Doug Barton , lists@yazzy.org Subject: Re: Registrars with free DynDNS services of my own domains. X-BeenThere: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Services Providers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 01:47:27 -0000 On 2010.02.23 01:41, Chuck Swiger wrote: > On Feb 22, 2010, at 7:41 PM, Doug Barton wrote: >>> All registrars do that. They can't register domains without being >>> willing to point them somewhere, so they can either delegate to >>> nameservers the customers specify or use their own nameservers. >> >> That's not actually true. There is no requirement that a domain name >> registration have name servers associated with it, although what you >> describe is by far the most common model. > > RFC 1591, section 3.3 & 3.5? Come on Chuck, You know what Doug meant. You could have done it a bit more subtly given the crappy current practice ;) Steve