In article <4100f46b.3052852730@news.radix.net>,
John Schmidt <js@radix.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 03:56:11 GMT, "Neil Morrison" <nowrite@to.me>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bill Vermillion" <bv@wjv.com> wrote in message news:I1A9uB.rq6@wjv.com...
>
>>> I found out the name servers he is using.
>>>
>>> They resolve the www.sco.com to 127.0.0.1.
>
><snip>
>
>>> I may be wrong, but I can see no way someone could accidentally do
>>> that.

>I normally don't blame malice when there's a chance that incompetance
>is invloved, but that does look REAL shady. It would be interesting to
>see the output of a "dig" on www.sco.com against one of those
>nameservers.


; <<>> DiG 8.3 <<>> @209.218.76.2 www.sco.com
; (1 server found)
;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
;; got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 3849
;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 1
;; QUERY SECTION:
;; www.sco.com, type = A, class = IN

;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.sco.com. 1D IN A 127.0.0.1

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
sco.com. 1D IN NS localhost.

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
localhost. 1D IN A 127.0.0.1

;; Total query time: 84 msec
;; FROM: bilver.wjv.com to SERVER: 209.218.76.2
;; WHEN: Fri Jul 23 11:26:16 2004
;; MSG SIZE sent: 29 rcvd: 84


Two servers that gave this earlier now don't respond.

Bill

--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com