<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [registrars] Whois development
- To: "'Tim Ruiz'" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>, <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [registrars] Whois development
- From: "Donny Simonton" <donny@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 20:45:48 -0600
- In-reply-to: <000701c3d720$dbb51970$fa05a8c0@TIMRUIZ>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcPXIkoveOYcr1+LTQ6UPZ2EqPOOpQAAX3eA
Actually if you refresh a few times now on google itself, WHOIS comes and
goes. Seems like they might be taking it off.
Donny
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
> registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 8:24 PM
> To: michael@xxxxxxxxxx; registrars@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Whois development
>
> Interesting. It looks like the service google links to is attempting to
> use
> Network Solutions' port 43, and it gets blocked most of the time, and
> rightfully so.
>
> I fail to understand why registrars are expected to provide the
> infrastructure and support for third party ventures based primarily on
> high
> volume queries to our port 43.
>
> Tim
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 7:00 PM
> To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: [registrars] Whois development
>
> Hello All:
>
> Check out Google's latest foray into the search environment. A Whois
> command
> line search from the Google search window.
>
> http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/000114.html
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael
>
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|