North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Alternatives (was Re: whois broke again?)
- From: Dana Hudes
- Date: Mon Feb 21 08:45:59 2000
Just want to point out that while apparently the Perl module I maintain, Net::Whois doesn't work with the new long domain names it does work for everything in the NSI database. It does not support the competing registrars because they have wildly different format.
There is a WHOIS working group but it isn't very active :-(
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Allen Simpson" <email@example.com>
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2000 2:38 AM
Subject: Alternatives (was Re: whois broke again?)
> "Roeland M.J. Meyer" wrote:
> > For the record, I've tried to get you guy's attention with this stuff over
> > two years ago. Y'all strongly told me it was non-operational. But, when
> > systems start failing, and it becomes an operational issue, it's way too
> > late.
> Well, I was listening; we just didn't have rough consensus. But, maybe
> it's not _that_ late.
> Some private messages have said that NSI claims the whois contact
> information is now their "property".
> Here's an alternative: fight fire with fire.
> The collection of contact information interesting to network operators
> would be separately copyrightable under the new "digital millenium" act.
> After all, we never use most of the relatively useless information
> maintained by NSI.
> Would it be OK with the rest of us for Rodney Joffe to create a
> database of all the requests and answers made thru geektools?
> Users could add reliability notes about whether the contacts are valid.
> The resulting "compilation" would be what we distribute to our mirrors.
> This requires that we all use geektools to seed the database. We would
> change the Open/Net/Free/*BSD/*nix whois distributions to point at
> geektools. (Especially as default whois is pretty useless right now.)
> And that we trust Rodney (or some more formal entity) to administer the
> copyright in a way that is pleasing to us.
> In our naming tradition, we could call this new database "OpenWhois" or
> "NetWhois" or even "FreeWhois". ;-)
> Any consensus?
> Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32