Subject: Re: Whois vs. networksolutions
To: Todd Vierling <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: John Hawkinson <jhawk@MIT.EDU>
Date: 09/19/2000 15:22:16
In message <Pine.NEB.email@example.com>, Todd Vierling writ
>The prior server, whois.networksolutions.com is not "standard" either.
Eek. That's definitely far worse than the other two options.
>In case you missed it, domain names were deregulated a while ago. Netsol
>doesn't "own" the ./.COM/.ORG/.NET registry anymore, even if they currently
>host the root name server database. ICANN now controls the flow of that
>information. However, ICANN offers only rwhois service, so a regular whois
>client, which does not understand the rwhois protocol, won't be able to do
>anything useful with it.
Right, I understand that.
>If we want a "standard" whois server, until such time that our whois is a
>bit smarter, it must be whois.internic.net, with no exceptions. We cannot
>use whois.networksolutions.com in that case either. The drawback here is
>that whois.internic.net provides no way to recurse to the appropriate whois
I understand that too. I think we should go back to that, but either way,
whois.networksolutions.com is not tenable...
Perhaps we should ship an rwhois client?
>Blame Erik Fair for starting it, if you wish: he changed it from
>whois.internic.net to whois.networksolutions.com before the 1.5 branch.
>(Cynical grin notwithstanding. 8^)