Author: lost

Stupid Verisign Tricks Redux

Reactions to the actions taken by Verisign as described in my blog entry from September 16 have been heated and varied. It currently appears that Verisign has no intention of ceasing this nonsense. However, certain internet authorities have finally been heard from today.

The Internet Architecture Board has released an analysis of the use of wildcard DNS records at high levels in the DNS hierarchy. Anyone interested in this situation and its implications is encouraged to read this analysis. Perhaps the best part of the article from my perspective is this: "Proposed guideline: If you want to use wildcards in your zone and understand the risks, go ahead, but only do so with the informed consent of the entities that are delegated within your zone."

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has also finally broken its silence with the following advisory about the situation. While I usually disagree with ICANN’s tactics, this particular one of actually studying the issue and asking for feedback from other organizations is good. In particular their call for Verisign to voluntarily suspend the operation of their wildcard until the investigation is completed.

As things go, this issue has been little more than a minor technical annoyance to many of us in the industry. However, it was the sheer gall it took on the part of Verisign to say that they were doing this for the good of the internet when they, by their own admission, were profiting from it that got up most of our noses. Not to mention the protocol breakage that is mentioned in the IAB article noted above.

In fairness to Verisign, it should be noted that they were not the first ones to introduce a wildcard into a TLD, simply the most prominent one.

Stupid Verisign Tricks

On Monday, Verisign, the company that manages the contents of the .com and .net zone files, hijacked all non-existant domains to point to an intermittently functional search service. This does not affect any top level domain other than .com and .net.

Apparently, Verisign has decided that any DNS query for an A (IP address) record for any second level domain in the .com or .net top level domains will now resolve to an IP address controlled by Verisign which then attempts to guess what the user is trying to do. While this sounds like a great idea on the surface, and is, in fact, markedly similar to what many web browsers and online providers do, this is a horribly bad idea. When my web browser offers to search for the domain I misspelled, it affects me and me alone. When an online provider does this, it affects only the customers of that provider. In both cases, there is the possiblity of using a different browser or service. However, the the case of Verisign doing it using the DNS system, it makes it impossible for anyone trying to access a .com or .net domain to opt out of it, regardless of provider or web browser or any other consideration.

In addition, the DNS system is designed to respond with a negative answer when a request is made for a name that does not exist. This allows web browsers, email servers, and so on, to do something useful in this circumstance, like tell the user the domain does not exist. However, by adding an A record for non-existing domains, it is now impossible for a mail server to know that the domain really doesn’t exist. And while the use can likely figure out that the web site they requested does not exist based on the response from the server Verisign is point it to, automated systems that rely this negative response behaviour have no way of deducing this. And relying on this negative response is by no means broken since that is the only way the system can indicate that a domain does not exist.

To make matters worse, Verisign provided no notice to relevant internet community groups, such as NANOG, that such a change to the standard operating procedure was going to be done. In fact, the first notice many network operators had was that nonexistant domains were suddenly resolving. Many other learned this via discussion threads on NANOG which can be read in the NANOG archive at the above link. Many others in the internet community would have learned of this from the Slashdot article and related discussion on the issue.

The uproar on this issue shows no signs of dying down any time soon either as messages fly around the internet an amazing rate.

I hereby call upon Verisign to do the right thing and cease and desist this reprehensible attempt to hijack the .com and .net domains as their own personal playground. It is high time that Verisign started acting in a manner befitting an orgranization on whom a public trust has been bestowed!

Update at 1645: It looks like the authors of the BIND name server software are creating a patch that will allow users of BIND to bypass the Verisign brain damage. See a news report here. BIND is available from the ISC.

Update at 1435, Sept 17: Debate continues to rage about this issue. Some folks have taken actions which may or may not help. The ISC has released a patch to BIND which allows people to work around the problem. In addition, one person has publicly sent a formal complaint to ICANN (the body supposedly in charge of .com and .net overall) which is worth a read for those interested.

Weather

I just love the weather in Calgary. It’s so predictably unpredictable. I mean, today they’re forcasting snow (and have a heavy snow fall warning out) for Calgary. It’s apparently supposed to snow tonight and tomorrow then warm up some by Thursday. Well, I suppose that isn’t so bad. But it’s only the middle of September. It just doesn’t feel right for it to snow.

I suppose I should stop whining about it though. We’ve had years where it snowed in July.

On Movies and Critics

I was watching one of the ridiculous movie critic shows the other day. I listened to them consistently slamming just about every movie I have ever found entertaining. This got me to thinking. What makes a good film?

Obviously, what I like in a film is likely different than what you like in a film. Now, I can only truly examine what makes a movie good to my taste, so that is what I’ll do.

First, and foremost, the movie must be entertaining. If I am not entertained, there is little point watching it. At least in most cases. My motivation in going to a movie is to be entertained thus this is the most important factor. If I were going to learn something about something, then, perhaps, information would be more important.

Beyond entertaining, I have no real definition of what makes a movie good. I enjoyed such movies as Shrek, The Thirteenth Floor, The Matrix, Message in a Bottle, and, believe it or not, Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. I don’t mind really bad physics. I mean, that can be fun to pick apart. But a movie that is mostly correct but gets one or two important points glaringly wrong can be ruined. But not always. Humour helps, but is not required. Pure fantasy is great but can go horribly wrong. A good moral can help but can also hinder if there’s nothing else. Too slow of a pace or too fast can ruin an otherwise good film.

It seems to me that most people would agree that there is no single formula that makes a film good. While a particular formula may make repreated decent films, it can just as often (or more so) make duds. Predictability can be a drag or can be fun. You never can tell what will work.

And then there are films like Last Action Hero which I enjoyed but most people hate. On the other hand, there are movies which have nearly universal appeal such as It’s A Wonderful Life (which I also enjoyed). In any event, it seems to me that one should ignore the critics and simply decide what movie to go to based on one’s own taste. Don’t let anyone tell you what is a good movie and what isn’t.

It takes all kinds

For my weekly constitutional this week I walked around the Glenmore Reservoir. Ordinarily, I wouldn’t comment on this but this stroll was more eventful than most.

Not long after I got started, working counter-clockwise from “Parking Area A” of North Glenmore Park, I was flagged down by Piers (the boss’s son) and a pair of girls who were apparently doing some sort of scavenger hunt. Apparently they needed someone to sing a nursery rhyme. I declined to assist them since I couldn’t think of any nursery rhymes at that point.

Then, I encountered a fellow who was walking along the pathway with no shoes on. He seemed to have decent clothes so I have no idea why he was doing so. I never stopped to talk to him since he gave every indication of not wanting to talk to anyone.

When I was about three quarters around the reservoir, at Heritage Park, I stopped for a rest (one of many rests I took along the way since it was rather hot) and had a most unusual conversation with a fellow called Michael (if I’m remembering his name correctly). He seemed to be a nice enough fellow and probably just wanted to talk to people as he sat around on the bench since as I continued on my we, he started up with another person who had just arrived at the rest spot.

The preceeding only notes the most exceptional people encountered along the four hour trek around the reservoir. There were people of all sorts, young and old, availing themselves of the pathway. At a few points, there was a veritable traffic jam due to all the people on the path. All in all, it was an interesting day.

Megascale Engineering

I was watching a show called "Extreme Engineering" today. This episode discussed building a 1km high pyramid to house 750,000 people. An interesting idea, and possibly not so ridiculous as it might sound at first. But that isn’t what I want to yammer about today.

There seems to be a plethora of ideas for megascale engineering. Everything from gigantic pyramid cities to space elevators to colonies on distant planets. These things used to be the sole province of science fiction and fantasy stories yet now people are seriously considering building just such things. In fact, for much of this stuff, the technology to actually accomplish it does not seem to be so hugely far off.

I don’t know whether this is a testament to human imagination and skill or an example of sheer hubris. Either way, it will certainly make for interesting times to come.

Pedestrian Friendliness

Why is it that when freeways are built that pedestrian traffic is completely ignored? I mean, why are pedestrian crossings over freeways so far apart? Wouldn’t it help some of the traffic issues if there were more ways for pedestrians to cross freeways?

In Calgary, for example, along Deerfoot Trail one is hard pressed to find a bridge over the freeway which has a sidewalk on it. It seems that when most of the interchanges were built, there was no consideration at all that people might want to walk from one place to another. It should be pointed out that most of the newer road crossings do have sidewalks so it seems there has been a change in policy in Calgary at least. But even so, the ones that haven’t been upgraded still present something of a challenge for the pedestrian.

In some cases, the lack of a sidewalk can be attributed to the fact that the interchange was built in the country before there was any development around it. It is possible to understand the reasoning for not building in anything to handle foot traffic, but really, how much extra does it cost to build in the necessary width on the bridge deck to handle a sidewalk? I suppose the reasoning is that there is no sidewalk along a highway so why on the bridge? Well, a person can walk along the ditch in many places (or on the shoulder) but the bridges often have no extra width for a shoulder thus nowhere for people to walk. Granted, there aren’t many pedestrians in the country so it might seem silly to people.

I suppose the point of this relatively pointless ramble is that it would be nice to see some consideration for pedestrians when people are designing transportation networks.

Stupid Grammar Rules

I was pondering English grammar today. Actually, I quite regularly ponder English grammar. I’m strange that way I guess. But what came to my mind today was not a rant on how nobody gets it right or how complex it is. I ended up pondering why some of the rules many of us have been taught exist.

Possibly the most common rule that all of us have been chastized for breaking is that silly one about ending a sentence with a preposition. Why is it wrong to end a sentence with a preposition? I remember reading somewhere that this was a rule that was arbitrarily invented because someone felt that English should follow Latin rules. Oh yes, here is the document I was reading. Basically, English is not Latin or any other language and so conventions from another language need not apply to English. Either way, the preceeding link is a very good discussion of prepositions at the end of sentences.

My personal favourite “rule” of grammar is that we should never split infinitives. Why? An infinitive in English is two words. It’s perfectly natural to insert something between those words! In fact, in many cases, going out of the way to avoid splitting an infinitive simply makes the statement so convoluted that it requires a post-doctoral education to unravel it. That is hardly an effective way to communicate. In reality, there is no particular hard rule about splitting the infinitive; indeed, it seems that the rule about never splitting an infinitive may be rooted in the same fetish that yielded the above rule about prepositions: that English should behave like Latin. Again, I point out that English is not Latin nor is it any other language but English. It does truly seem to be a matter of preference whether one avoids splitting infinitives where possible or simply makes no effort to avoid doing so. Personally, I see nothing wrong with splitting infinitives and will certainly never insist that someone reword something to avoid it. See this page for a good discussion of split infinitives.

Doubtless there are other stupid rules of grammar but the two noted above are the ones that get under my skin the most. Neither one is rooted in actual English tradition but in some fetish to make English behave like Latin (as far as I can tell anyway). Why can’t we simply let English be English?

Fire Alarms and Nights

I was just rudely awakened by the bloody fire alarm going off in the apartment building I live in. What is it about the middle of the night that seems to attract fire alarms? And what is it about Saturday night/Sunday morning that is so attractive to fire alarms in this building? I mean, I think much more than half of the alarms since I’ve lived here have been on Saturday night. Oh well, I guess life will be life. Too bad there really was a fire of some description this time, although I missed the explanation of exactly what it was.

What really sucks, though, is that now I need to go out for an hour or three to wait for the smoke to clear so I can breathe easy.

Update at 06:00. It seems it was a fire in the above ground parkade. Apparently a car was on fire. Thankfully, it was on the other side of the parkade from my parking space.

Privacy Policies

Why is it that so many organizations feel that it is morally right for them to assume they can use my personal information (possibly collected without my knowledge) for any purpose they can think of without first asking permission?

I went to sign up for a weekly movie showtimes newsletter from Famous Players and decided to read their privacy policy. It turns out that if I don’t want them to sell my name, address, and email address to random, "reputable" organizations, I have to explicitly email them and ask that they don’t. If I don’t want random junk email from Famous Players, I have to ask them not to send it. They even have the audacity to say that they may use information collected automatically from people who just browse through their site for any purpose they see fit. And, to add insult to injury, they didn’t even write out their privacy policy in properly composed English or even Legalese. I mean, their policy essentially gives them the right to use my personal information, no matter how it was collected, in any way they see fit, without my permission. In fact, they even say straight out that they may use information collected for "unanticipated purposes" that are not laid out in the privacy policy. Of course, I can email them and ask them not to do that.

Now, I do have to give them credit. They required me to check off a box to say I had read and understood their privacy policy before I could sign up for this weekly showtimes newsletter. If I had checked that box without reading the policy, I would deserve anything that came out of it. I imagine most people do just that, however. I immediately terminated the process of signing up for this newsletter when I read their privacy policy.

I am hereby putting out a call to everyone who browses the web and/or signs up for anything to check on the privacy policy of the organization they are dealing with. I further charge all of you to refuse to provide any personal information to any organization which has a privacy policy you find inadequate or distasteful. I aslo urge anyone who finds a policy they disagree with to let the organization know (if at all possible) and to be explicit that any personal information contained in that communication is not to be used for any purpose whatsoever beyond discussion of the complaint. If enough of us do this, then maybe things will change without clogging the courts with yet more lawsuits.