top bar
QuickTopic free message boards logo
Skip to Messages


MacSlash's domain stolen

^     All messages            5-20 of 20  1-4 >>
Paul SchreiberPerson was signed in when posted
09:10 PM ET (US)
You'd think they'd learn -- was registered with network solutions/verisign of all people.

Danny O'BrienPerson was signed in when posted
01:07 AM ET (US)
If it's anything like the and thefts, that address will be fake anyway. I can vouch that the smug pseudo-address - which purports to be a UK address - is non-existent.
Edited 05-31-2002 01:07 AM
spaceship operatorPerson was signed in when posted
12:42 AM ET (US)
has anyone actually heard from the macslash admin crowd?
MCraniumPerson was signed in when posted
10:33 PM ET (US)
Let's not confuse politically incorrect with being just plain uninformed and asinine. Nobody cares if anyone "makes fun." Making fun of someone based upon a totally wrong assumption just makes one look like they're giving themselves a colonoscopy.
Edited 05-31-2002 12:45 PM
nycdewdPerson was signed in when posted
10:13 PM ET (US)
Cory: Actually it was more of a reaction to the smartass that posted this remark after my first post in this thread: "Feel free to post a message at macslash saying i can't get to it. Thanks."

And, <holds hand to mouth> heaven forbid anyone should make fun of anyone. did i incite a riot with my less than sanitized (sanitized: devoid of all human emotion and politically correct) remarks?
Cory DoctorowPerson was signed in when posted
09:27 PM ET (US)
I honestly can't believe that someone out there thinks that posting a public fact that is a matter of the Internet's public record (just as my home phone number is a matter of public record, via my NSI nick, CD112) is a privacy violation. The person who created that record included exactly as much infomation as he wished to have available to the public and no more.

Nycdewd, I hope you're not making fun of Erik with your post. The fact that your ISP caches DNS for longer than its TTL (or that your OS doesn't ping its nameservers as often as is described by best practices) doesn't change the fact that for *most of the Internet* (and soon, *all of the Internet*), MacSlash's domain does not resolve to the MacSlash site.
nycdewdPerson was signed in when posted
09:20 PM ET (US)
NOTE: I can still hit that site and it has been updated since the last time I visited. NOTE: I am using the link I have always used to visit MacSlash. NOTE: It is a toolbar favorite. NOTE: I have been accessing MacSlash and noting that there are subsequent updates to MacSlash's page content, for the past 26 hours. NOTE: Propagate that.
phyxeldPerson was signed in when posted
07:17 PM ET (US)
Sure, his name was gotten from whois, but how do we know thats really the thief? Most likely, one wouldn't hijack a popular site's domain and put it under their own real name... In fact, they'd be more likely to use the name of someone they wanted to cause trouble for. By taking the person's name from whois and posting it on this site, you're only helping the ass who hijacked the name in the first place.

But thats just my opinion.
zangdesignPerson was signed in when posted
05:52 PM ET (US)
His address is a matter of public record since he signed on with a registrar. Same as any other. If you want my address you can look it up at my domain.

With Dotster.

Rich GibsonPerson was signed in when posted
05:23 PM ET (US)
What is the problem with posting the address of a thief? It isn't like Cory advocated that anyone do anything illegal.

Though from a personal standpoint, it seems that if you make the choice to operate outside of the laws, mores, and customs of our society, as these cretins have done, that you explicitly give up any expectation of protection from that same set of laws, mores, and customs.
RevGregoryPerson was signed in when posted
04:36 PM ET (US)
When I first heard about this yesterday evening, MacSlash was still perfectly accessable - today I get server connect errors. I guess the most fuxed up part of this is that the folks at MacSlash have registered a new URL ( through Network Solutions!!! Have they not been paying attention?! I have one domain with Dotster and I am seriously considering moving it ASAP... for posting the guy's address being "an invasion of privacy", get stuffed! It's not like WHOIS info isn't publicly available. If he wanted to remain anon he could have gotten a PO Box or just not scammed MacSlash's URL in the first place...
Edited 05-30-2002 04:39 PM
raphaelPerson was signed in when posted
04:33 PM ET (US)
Ummm...posting this guy's address doesn't seem particularly kosher. The rabid Mac evangelism is one thing. The invasion of people's privacy, is something entirely different. Or at least it should be.

I would expect better of someone who normally champions the importance of privacy issues...and someone who is supposedly 'aware'.

MCraniumPerson was signed in when posted
04:23 PM ET (US)
I tried for a while, but despite their excellent TOS, I just got really tired of the whole loincloth, salt-gathering, passive resistance stuff they had me doing.

Ok, that wasn't really funny, sorry.
rajbotPerson was signed in when posted
04:22 PM ET (US)
is macslash still accessible by its old ip address?

if so, anyone know that IP?
PaulHoffmanPerson was signed in when posted
02:58 PM ET (US)
Cory asks "Who's in charge, anyway?" Well, Cory, who do you propose be in charge? The US government, who would make rules about what happens to names for owners who break laws? ICANN, the bastion of regulatory inability? VeriSign, who is the registry for all .com names?

The DNS is a hierarchical system, and "who's in charge" generally only goes up one level of the hierarchy very well. If you can think of someone who would run .com better than VeriSign (and by better I mean without using a heavy hand or bowing to pressure from various local and national governments), by all means let us know who.

So far, VeriSign has run .com in a very hands-off fashion, deferring to ICANN. ICANN has done zilch for enforcement.
Erik V. OlsonPerson was signed in when posted
02:56 PM ET (US)
Note. When a DNS server goes offline or a record is removed, it takes time for the effects to propogate. Many DNS servers also cache information. Note when Electrolite and Making Light lost thier DNS, anyone with cached information could still see it (including, ironically enough, Patrick and Teresa) while others couldn't.

(Edited to fix mispelling of Electrolite)
Edited 05-30-2002 02:57 PM
^     All messages            5-20 of 20  1-4 >>

Print | RSS Views: 935 (Unique: 698 ) / Subscribers: 1 | What's this?