DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [nc-impwhois] Melbourne IT WHOIS implementation comments

Thomas, I agree.


 -------- Original Message --------
   Subject: Re: [nc-impwhois] Melbourne IT WHOIS implementation comments
   From: Thomas Roessler <roessler-mobile@does-not-exist.net>
   Date: Sat, January 18, 2003 2:30 am
   To: nc-impwhois@dnso.org

   On 2003-01-17 11:03:24 -0800, Rick Wesson wrote:

   > you bring up an excellent point. our demo is just that, a demo -- it
   > is not connected to our production system. as we have had
   > significant abuse of the demo through the web-services API. We
   > stopped updating the data in November and also reduced the data
   > sets coverage.

   Fine.  So I'll just assume that your production system does the
   right thing about telephone numbers in certain countries (and, more
   generally, about telephone numbers it can't make a judgement about).
   Congratulations for fixing this.

   Anyway, the key point of my earlier message (which should be
   self-evident) remains: Automated, database-backed systems can check
   the PLAUSIBILITY of WHOIS data elements, and only that. Plausibility
   is no proof for accuracy.  On the other hand, great care must be
   taken before "non-plausible" data can be considered proof of
   inaccuracy, and, hence, give reason to the cancellation of domain

   Plausibility checkers will always have a certain error margin due to
   outdated information, data entry errors, programming errors, and the
   like.  They can't be used as the sole source for judgements on the
   accuracy of address information.

   Any procedures designed by this group, and any suggestions that
   something can be done by an automated system, MUST keep this caveat in

   Hope that helps,
   Thomas Roessler				<roessler@does-not-exist.org>

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>