Hey, SiteFinder is back, again...

>> Yes, it sounds like the evil bit. Why would anyone bother to set it?
> Two reasons
> 1) By standardizing the process, it removes the excuse for using
> various hacks and duct tape.
> 2) Because the villian in Bond movies don't view themselves as evil.
> Google is happy to pre-check the box to install their Toolbar, OpenDNS
> is proud they redirect phishing sites with DNS lookups, Earthlink says it
> improves the customer experience, and so on.

Forgive my skepticism, but what I would envision happening is resolver
stacks adding a switch that would be on by default, and would translate
the response back to NXDOMAIN. At that point we would be right back
where we started, only after a lengthy debate, an RFC, a bunch of code,
numerous bugs, and a bunch of "I told you sos".

The other half of this is that it probably isn't *appropriate* to encourage
abuse of the DNS in this manner, and if you actually add a framework to do
this sort of thing, it amounts to tacit (or explicit) approval, which will
lead to even more sites doing it.

Consider where it could lead. Pick something that's already sketchy, such
as hotel networks. Creating the perfect excuse for them to map every domain
name to, force it through a web proxy, and then have their tech
support people tell you that "if you're having problems, make sure you set
the browser-uses-evilbit-dns". And that RFC mandate to not do things like
this? Ignored. It's already annoying to try to determine what a hotel
means if they say they have "Internet access."

Reinventing the DNS protocol in order to intercept odd stuff on the Web
seems to me to be overkill and bad policy. Could someone kindly explain
to me why the proxy configuration support in browsers could not be used
for this, to limit the scope of damage to the web browsing side of things?
I realize that the current implementations may not be quite ideal for
this, but wouldn't it be much less of a technical challenge to develop a
PAC or PAC-like framework to do this in an idealized fashion, and then
actually do so?

... JG

Because that would require user intervention. Even with a willing userbase, you will never get 100% adoption, and that will affect your revenues.

IOW: Because it won't make as much $$.

In general, I don't think "make more money" is a bad motivation. (Hell, it's one of my main motivations.) But it has to be tempered by the "greater good", or we end up with an unworkable system, and then everyone makes less money in the long run.

IMHO, of course.