Might I suggest that the Microsoft DNS server software has something to
do with this problem
Perhaps every ISP should gang up on M$ and blackhole their /24 with the
DNS servers in, so that they spend even longer trying to work out why it
isn't working
Domain names in the .com, .net, and .org domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.
It doesn't report it for microsoft.com, it reports the hostnames for
.ARTISTICCHEESE.COM, .LINUXISGOD.COM, .ZOY.ORG and others. The query is a
little loose so it pulls up all match hostnames also. aol.com is the same
way.
This comes up every few months on various mailing lists.
To single out one record, look it up with "xxx", where xxx is one of the
of the records displayed above. If the records are the same, look them up
with "=xxx" to receive a full display for each record.
whois =microsoft.com
All the others are various nameservers registered by people trying to be
funny.
Out of interest.. does anyone happen to know why rs.internic.net reports
the following of microsoft.com?
When you do a search on microsoft.com, it turns up hostnames that include
'microsoft.com' - those are the domain names of hosts registered with
Internic. That's all these are.
"Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@opaltelecom.co.uk> writes:
Out of interest.. does anyone happen to know why rs.internic.net reports
the following of microsoft.com?
[rs.internic.net]
[ ... ]
MICROSOFT.COM.HACKED.BY.HACKSWARE.COM
[ etc... ]
That's a fairly recent trick (which has been discussed here before);
the default Whois search is a substring search. Since anybody with a
domain can register their DNS servers with any registrar, the smartass
owner of 'hacksware.com' just named their nameserver:
MICROSOFT.COM.HACKED.BY.HACKSWARE.COM
which is a legitate name for a nameserver, and contains the substring
microsoft.com.
You can work around it by only searching domains (not nameservers):
whois 'domain microsoft.com'
Either funny or disturbing, depending on how you look at it. Perhaps
both . . .