Re: What Happened to Netscan? (fwd)

[Michael Dillon <michael@memra.com>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 22:00:46 -0800
From: Troy Davis <troy@nack.net>
To: NANOG
Subject: Re: What Happened to Netscan?


On Wed, Mar 24, 1999 at 11:42:26AM -0800, Marc Slemko wrote:

> That is because the domain isn't in the root name servers.

This has been corrected, but the reason it's down is independant of this.

> https://payments.networksolutions.com/ ... oops, sorry, that has been down
> most of the time for the past few weeks.

Note also that it's not possible to pay without a tracking number - can't just
say "bill me for this domain", it nee

> Or it could be because NSI screwed up.

And it was.  December's credit card receipt has a 12/23/98 charge of $70, and
no other domains were paid for or renewed around that time.  So we were
charged and the payment was never recorded.

Alas, we said the hell with it and paid again this morning.  I'll probably try
to resolve it later this week..

> My new theory on why NSI does all this to make it impossible to tell such
> things is so they can make domain holders contact them directly so NSI can
> try to push their extra services onto them.

My latest complaint is with the modification-by-fax process.  Someone forged 
an email change template for one of our domains, which we noacked (and 
the noack was confirmed).  Nothing out of the ordinary until we checked a few 
days later and noticed that the fake change was processed.

It seems these folks sent in a fax on <ahem> "letterhead" requesting the 
change.

I'm curious what Guardian is for if an explicit noack is superceded *without
warning* by a fax.  Beware of folks with desktop publishing software.

On the upside, it only took a 40 minute long distance call to get an emergency 
tracking number.  Our faxed change request was processed the next day.  
Considering that forged changes (hopefully) aren't very common, I was 
surprised it was handled so quickly.

Wake me when Network Solutions loses their monopoly.

> Still accessible via IP address though.  216.92.33.199.  I guess that
> using a hosts file isn't such a bad idea after all.

Yeah, that's an older version, but feel free to use it until we're back.

netscan.org queries can be sent to me (troy@nack.net) until netscan.org
returns to the root servers.

-- 
Troy Davis