Has anyone else noted that "whois server <handle>" no longer seems
to be working at the InterNIC?
Given the number of very confused personal e-mails I've gotten on
this, here's a direct example:
: dns:~ $ whois conch.aa.msen.com
: [No name] (CONCH-HST)
:
: Hostname: CONCH.AA.MSEN.COM
: Address: 148.59.1.20
: System: ASA Pentium running BSDI UNIX
:
: Coordinator:
: Operations Center, Msen Network (MNO5) noc@MAIL.MSEN.COM
: +1 248 740-3400 xt. 2 (FAX) +1 248 740-0690
:
: Record last updated on 13-Dec-96.
: Database last updated on 18-Dec-98 09:08:01 EST.
:
: dns:~ $ whois server conch-hst
: No match for server "CONCH-HST".
:
: dns:~ $ whois gr-press.com
:
: Registrant:
: The Grand Rapids Press (GR-PRESS-DOM)
: 155 Michigan Ave. NW
: Grand Rapids, MI 49503
:
: Domain Name: GR-PRESS.COM
:
: Administrative Contact:
: Hanson, Worth (WH851) Whanson@CCMAIL.GR-PRESS.COM
: (616) 222-5605
: Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
: Burnett, Doug (DB131) dburnett@BOOTH-NEWS.COM
: (313) 994-6960
: Billing Contact:
: Ramos, Dora (DR921) sbandg@CONDENAST.COM
: (212) 692-4456
:
: Record last updated on 26-Aug-97.
: Record created on 17-Mar-94.
: Database last updated on 18-Dec-98 09:08:01 EST.
:
: Domain servers in listed order:
:
: DNS.MSEN.COM 148.59.19.11
: CONCH.AA.MSEN.COM 148.59.1.20
: NBN.NBN.COM 199.4.64.19
:
Hopefully this clarifies things a bit more.
We're having enough trouble getting information on stuff on our servers.
We will be rather upset if this path is closed off too.
But why not the following syntax: (and I admit, I've never used "whois
server server-handle" before, but always the below syntax)
[dredd@lawgiver dredd]$ whois conch-hst
[rs.internic.net]
[No name] (CONCH-HST)
Hostname: CONCH.AA.MSEN.COM
Address: 148.59.1.20
System: ASA Pentium running BSDI UNIX
<snip>
But why not the following syntax: (and I admit, I've never used "whois
server server-handle" before, but always the below syntax)[dredd@lawgiver dredd]$ whois conch-hst
[...]
The whole purpose of the "server" directive is to give you a dump,
within reason, of the domains that contain your server's NIC handle.
Conch is no longer supposed to be serving DNS, but the NIC and its
agents are giving us a HELL of a time getting the thing changed to the
new handle, especially for domains that we aren't registered handles for.
I'm tempted at this point to LAME DELEGATE each of the affected domains
(lucky for me, I have a snapshot of this the last time it worked).
Never mind that it will take about a solid month of beating on
hostmaster and calling and yelling to get this done. Lame delegations
seem to get ignored most of the time when we submit them.
The NIC is either broke, or is slipping even further in letting
people keep the whois system clean. I'm trying to figure out if this
is oops or otherwise.
I'm not going to even comment on their broken BEFORE-USE guardian problems..
Anyone from NetSol wishing to comment?
But why not the following syntax: (and I admit, I've never used "whois
server server-handle" before, but always the below syntax)[dredd@lawgiver dredd]$ whois conch-hst
[rs.internic.net]
[No name] (CONCH-HST)Hostname: CONCH.AA.MSEN.COM
Address: 148.59.1.20
System: ASA Pentium running BSDI UNIX
<snip>
[...]
> : dns:~ $ whois server conch-hst
> : No match for server "CONCH-HST".
[...]
You are missing the whole point of what he is trying to do.
Originally (well, a while back), "whois server foo-hst" would return a
list of up to 256 domains using that nameserver for their ns records.
Then it was changed so it only returned 100 or something on that order.
Now that this feature is gone, if you want to do this then you either have
to beg the InterNIC to send you a list (if it is your server) and wait
around hoping they will respond or beg them to give you ftp access to the
zone file then download the whole thing and grep it.
So I was told (quite rudely I might add) by someone in a private e-mail.
As I said.. I'd never used that syntax before, so it was completely lost
on me. 
My apologies for the noise.
D
i complained to hostmaster@internic.net about this a few nights ago, but
by the time they got around to replying to my mail, it had been fixed.
judging from the response, i think it's more likely that they're having
problems with the feature than killing it.
Jeffrey Haas wrote: