- From: Brian Behlendorf <brian@organic.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 12:06:43 -0800 (PST)
- To: Darren New <dnew@sgf.fv.com>
- Cc: www-talk@w3.org
On Wed, 20 Dec 1995, Darren New wrote: > > are choosing .com as opposed to .xx. As for lat and long, this is > > nearly meaningless and probably will become moreso in the months and > > years to come. > > Meaningless as far as network-closeness, yes. But useful for other > purposes, like political ones. (Taxes, export laws, censorship laws, etc > etc etc.) Because the country code is optional (sites could register .com, .org, .net, etc) or they could simply refuse reverse-DNS service altogether, it would be a bad idea to base any legal or political decisions on it. Sure, if I found a user accessing my site from *.sa (Saudi Arabia) I might not want to let them access my alt.sex.stories archive, but would I know whether to let in 196.1.3.1? Howbout saudi-oil.com? Brian --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- brian@organic.com brian@hyperreal.com http://www.[hyperreal,organic].com/
Received on Wednesday, 20 December 1995 17:28:59 UTC