Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.php > #10973 > unrolled thread

A general note on invalid.com and others like it

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.php

Contents

  A general note on invalid.com and others like it Twayne <nobody@spamcop.net> - 2013-10-02 15:07 -0400
    Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it Fiver <numeralfive@gmail.com> - 2013-10-02 21:46 +0200
      Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it "Peter H. Coffin" <hellsop@ninehells.com> - 2013-10-02 17:07 -0500
        Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it Fiver <numeralfive@gmail.com> - 2013-10-03 00:31 +0200
          Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it Twayne <nobody@spamcop.net> - 2013-10-02 20:03 -0400
            Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it Fiver <numeralfive@gmail.com> - 2013-10-03 02:23 +0200
              Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-10-02 22:49 -0400
              Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it Twayne <nobody@spamcop.net> - 2013-10-03 14:06 -0400
        Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it Twayne <nobody@spamcop.net> - 2013-10-02 20:02 -0400
      Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-10-03 19:36 +0200
    Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> - 2013-10-02 19:49 +0000
      Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it richard <noreply@example.com> - 2013-10-03 22:40 -0400
        Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> - 2013-10-04 03:50 +0000
          Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it richard <noreply@example.com> - 2013-10-04 04:08 -0400
            Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> - 2013-10-04 12:55 +0000
          Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2013-10-04 13:42 +0000
            Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> - 2013-10-04 14:04 +0000
          Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it Twayne <nobody@spamcop.net> - 2013-10-04 19:33 -0400
            Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it "Peter H. Coffin" <hellsop@ninehells.com> - 2013-10-05 13:54 -0500
              Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it Twayne <nobody@spamcop.net> - 2013-10-05 18:13 -0400
            Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> - 2013-10-05 19:01 +0000
              Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it Twayne <nobody@spamcop.net> - 2013-10-05 18:16 -0400
                Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> - 2013-10-06 01:47 +0000
                  Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-10-05 22:45 -0400
                    Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> - 2013-10-06 02:54 +0000
        Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it Twayne <nobody@spamcop.net> - 2013-10-04 19:30 -0400
    Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it richard <noreply@example.com> - 2013-10-03 22:44 -0400
      Re: A general note on invalid.com and others like it The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-10-04 08:32 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#10973 — A general note on invalid.com and others like it

Just an idle comment on those who use invalid.com for e-mail addresses:

invalid.com is a legit e-mail address; try it.

Using it would be violating your tos and/or aup by your ISP for 
impersonation.

It's also for sale: But if you like being associated with the following:
-----------
[Querying whois.verisign-grs.com]
[Redirected to whois.networksolutions.com]
[Querying whois.networksolutions.com]
[whois.networksolutions.com]
Welcome to the Network Solutions(R) Registrar WHOIS Server.

The IP address from which you have visited the Network Solutions 
Registrar WHOIS
database is contained within a list of IP addresses that may have failed
to abide by Network Solutions' WHOIS policy.  Failure to abide by this 
policy can
adversely impact our systems and servers, preventing the processing of
other WHOIS requests.

To see the Network Solutions WHOIS Policy, click on or copy and paste 
the following
URL into your browser:
http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/index.jhtml
If you feel that you have received this message in error, please email 
us using the online
form at http://www.networksolutions.com/help/email.jsp with the 
following information:
Whois Query: invalid.com
YOUR IP address is 198.171.79.36
Date and Time of Query: Wed Oct 02 14:08:30 EDT 2013
Reason Code: IE
--------------
Go ahead and keep using it. I'd think twice about associating myself 
with them, though.

My gosh dolts, use an actual non-existant address and check it out! Or 
better yet, use one of the thousands of addresses set up for just that 
purpose; they're all over the place and many from reputable company 
sources, too. Beware the scammers though, as in all things internet.

I haven't looked in years, but heypete.com used to have a lot of them 
available, and spamcop.NET maintains a couple also. As do many other 
places, or even create your own freebie  and just never use the account.

HTH

Twayne`

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#10975

On 2013-10-02 21:07, Twayne wrote:
> Just an idle comment on those who use invalid.com for e-mail addresses:
> 
> invalid.com is a legit e-mail address; try it.
> 
> Using it would be violating your tos and/or aup by your ISP for 
> impersonation.
> 
> It's also for sale: [snip whois]

> My gosh dolts, use an actual non-existant address and check it out!

Dolts?

.invalid is a reserved top level domain for exactly this purpose:

| ".invalid" is intended for use in online construction of domain
| names that are sure to be invalid and which it is obvious at a
| glance are invalid.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2606

I don't know where you read "invalid.com". It was certainly not in the
message you replied to earlier.

5er

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10978

On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 21:46:57 +0200, Fiver wrote:
> On 2013-10-02 21:07, Twayne wrote:
>> Just an idle comment on those who use invalid.com for e-mail addresses:
>> 
>> invalid.com is a legit e-mail address; try it.
>> 
>> Using it would be violating your tos and/or aup by your ISP for 
>> impersonation.
>> 
>> It's also for sale: [snip whois]
>
>> My gosh dolts, use an actual non-existant address and check it out!
>
> Dolts?
>
> .invalid is a reserved top level domain for exactly this purpose:

"invalid.com" != ".invalid"

-- 
The Write Many, Read Never drive.  For those people that don't know
their system has a /dev/null already.
              -- Rik Steenwinkel, singing the praises of 8mm Exabytes

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10979

On 2013-10-03 00:07, Peter H. Coffin wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 21:46:57 +0200, Fiver wrote:
>> On 2013-10-02 21:07, Twayne wrote:
>>> My gosh dolts, use an actual non-existant address and check it out!
>>
>> Dolts?
>>
>> .invalid is a reserved top level domain for exactly this purpose:
> 
> "invalid.com" != ".invalid"

My point precisely. Nobody here was using "invalid.com".

5er

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10982

On 2013-10-02 6:31 PM, Fiver wrote:
> On 2013-10-03 00:07, Peter H. Coffin wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 21:46:57 +0200, Fiver wrote:
>>> On 2013-10-02 21:07, Twayne wrote:
>>>> My gosh dolts, use an actual non-existant address and check it out!
>>>
>>> Dolts?
>>>
>>> .invalid is a reserved top level domain for exactly this purpose:
>>
>> "invalid.com" != ".invalid"
>
> My point precisely. Nobody here was using "invalid.com".
>
> 5er
>

A quick search of my archives showed it uniquely listed 26 times; so ...
And that's just here; not any of the other ngs's.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10983

On 2013-10-03 02:03, Twayne wrote:
> On 2013-10-02 6:31 PM, Fiver wrote:
>> On 2013-10-03 00:07, Peter H. Coffin wrote:
>>> "invalid.com" != ".invalid"
>>
>> My point precisely. Nobody here was using "invalid.com".

> A quick search of my archives showed it uniquely listed 26 times; so ...

Must have been a while ago. I only loaded 2k headers going back to
January this year, and there are no occurrences of invalid.com. I have
no doubt that your archives are more extensive, so I defer to your
judgement about the need for a public service announcement.

regards,
5er

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10985

On 10/2/2013 8:23 PM, Fiver wrote:
> On 2013-10-03 02:03, Twayne wrote:
>> On 2013-10-02 6:31 PM, Fiver wrote:
>>> On 2013-10-03 00:07, Peter H. Coffin wrote:
>>>> "invalid.com" != ".invalid"
>>>
>>> My point precisely. Nobody here was using "invalid.com".
>
>> A quick search of my archives showed it uniquely listed 26 times; so ...
>
> Must have been a while ago. I only loaded 2k headers going back to
> January this year, and there are no occurrences of invalid.com. I have
> no doubt that your archives are more extensive, so I defer to your
> judgement about the need for a public service announcement.
>
> regards,
> 5er
>

Don't worry about it.  Twayne is just a well-known troll in this newsgroup.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10992

On 2013-10-02 8:23 PM, Fiver wrote:
> On 2013-10-03 02:03, Twayne wrote:
>> On 2013-10-02 6:31 PM, Fiver wrote:
>>> On 2013-10-03 00:07, Peter H. Coffin wrote:
>>>> "invalid.com" != ".invalid"
>>>
>>> My point precisely. Nobody here was using "invalid.com".
>
>> A quick search of my archives showed it uniquely listed 26 times; so ...
>
> Must have been a while ago. I only loaded 2k headers going back to
> January this year, and there are no occurrences of invalid.com. I have
> no doubt that your archives are more extensive, so I defer to your
> judgement about the need for a public service announcement.
>
> regards,
> 5er
>

Hi 5,
    Not wanting to make you "defer"; just making a statement. I had 
hoped people would just try the URL and maybe look them up on whois or 
their fav place. The only point was to get folks to use something made 
for the purpose - and not make up addresses on a whim.

Twayne`

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10981

On 2013-10-02 6:07 PM, Peter H. Coffin wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 21:46:57 +0200, Fiver wrote:
>> On 2013-10-02 21:07, Twayne wrote:
>>> Just an idle comment on those who use invalid.com for e-mail addresses:
>>>
>>> invalid.com is a legit e-mail address; try it.
>>>
>>> Using it would be violating your tos and/or aup by your ISP for
>>> impersonation.
>>>
>>> It's also for sale: [snip whois]
>>
>>> My gosh dolts, use an actual non-existant address and check it out!
>>
>> Dolts?
>>
>> .invalid is a reserved top level domain for exactly this purpose:
>
> "invalid.com" != ".invalid"
>

You obviously didn't bother to try to access invalid.com, did you?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10989

Fiver wrote:

> On 2013-10-02 21:07, Twayne wrote:
>> Just an idle comment on those who use invalid.com for e-mail addresses:
>> 
>> invalid.com is a legit e-mail address; try it.
>> 
>> Using it would be violating your tos and/or aup by your ISP for
>> impersonation.
>> 
>> It's also for sale: [snip whois]
> 
>> My gosh dolts, use an actual non-existant address and check it out!
> 
> Dolts?
> 
> .invalid is a reserved top level domain for exactly this purpose:
> 
> | ".invalid" is intended for use in online construction of domain
> | names that are sure to be invalid and which it is obvious at a
> | glance are invalid.
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2606

And for those who can read, it is proposed under

| 2. TLDs for Testing, & Documentation Examples

It is _not_ proposed under “2. TLDs for anti-social address munging in 
Usenet because you are not smart enough to deal with your incoming spam”.

<http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/>
 
> I don't know where you read "invalid.com". It was certainly not in the
> message you replied to earlier.

I would not know, .invalid & friends go to /dev/null automagically here.
And postings without real name are scored down the same way.


F'up2 news.admin.net-abuse.usenet

PointedEars
-- 
Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site.
(This won't prevent people from viewing your source, but no one
will want to steal it.)
  -- from <http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm> (404-comp.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10976

Twayne wrote:

> Just an idle comment on those who use invalid.com for e-mail addresses:
> 
> invalid.com is a legit e-mail address; try it.

Better is to use example.com as it is designed for the purpose. Even 
better than that is example.invalid

Any made-up user name to the left of the @ that uses a valid domain name 
to the right will flood the server of the owner of that valid domain, 
regardless if the user name is legitimate or not.

Thanks for pointing out this problem.

-- 
   -bts
   -This space for rent, but the price is high

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10998

On Wed, 2 Oct 2013 19:49:34 +0000 (UTC), Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

> Twayne wrote:
> 
>> Just an idle comment on those who use invalid.com for e-mail addresses:
>> 
>> invalid.com is a legit e-mail address; try it.
> 
> Better is to use example.com as it is designed for the purpose. Even 
> better than that is example.invalid
> 
> Any made-up user name to the left of the @ that uses a valid domain name 
> to the right will flood the server of the owner of that valid domain, 
> regardless if the user name is legitimate or not.
> 
> Thanks for pointing out this problem.

Really? I wasn't aware that simply posting an addy cause email to be sent
to that addy.
Is this some new feature of usenet?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11000

richard @shut.the.fuck.up.stupid wrote:

> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> Twayne wrote:
>>> Just an idle comment on those who use invalid.com for e-mail
>>> addresses:
>>> 
>>> invalid.com is a legit e-mail address; try it.
>> 
>> Better is to use example.com as it is designed for the purpose. Even
>> better than that is example.invalid
>> 
>> Any made-up user name to the left of the @ that uses a valid domain
>> name to the right will flood the server of the owner of that valid
>> domain, regardless if the user name is legitimate or not.
>> 
>> Thanks for pointing out this problem.
> 
> Really?

Yes, bullis, really. 

> I wasn't aware that simply posting an addy cause email to be
> sent to that addy.
> Is this some new feature of usenet?

In all your years, I suppose it is possible that you have never heard of 
email address harvesting on Usenet by spammers. Okay, I get that. You've 
learned something new tonight.

BTW, bullis@shut.the.fuck.up.stupid will still cause the servers the 
spammers use to attempt to *send* mail to shut.the.fuck.up.stupid. They 
will *not* attempt to send to example.com or something.invalid (because 
they are configured that way).

-- 
   -bts
   -This space for rent, but the price is high

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11002

On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 03:50:55 +0000 (UTC), Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

> richard @shut.the.fuck.up.stupid wrote:
> 
>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>>> Twayne wrote:
>>>> Just an idle comment on those who use invalid.com for e-mail
>>>> addresses:
>>>> 
>>>> invalid.com is a legit e-mail address; try it.
>>> 
>>> Better is to use example.com as it is designed for the purpose. Even
>>> better than that is example.invalid
>>> 
>>> Any made-up user name to the left of the @ that uses a valid domain
>>> name to the right will flood the server of the owner of that valid
>>> domain, regardless if the user name is legitimate or not.
>>> 
>>> Thanks for pointing out this problem.
>> 
>> Really?
> 
> Yes, bullis, really. 
> 
>> I wasn't aware that simply posting an addy cause email to be
>> sent to that addy.
>> Is this some new feature of usenet?
> 
> In all your years, I suppose it is possible that you have never heard of 
> email address harvesting on Usenet by spammers. Okay, I get that. You've 
> learned something new tonight.
> 
> BTW, bullis@shut.the.fuck.up.stupid will still cause the servers the 
> spammers use to attempt to *send* mail to shut.the.fuck.up.stupid. They 
> will *not* attempt to send to example.com or something.invalid (because 
> they are configured that way).

Yes you have it wrong.
Usenet addy's by themselves DO NOT send email.
They are collected and abused by spammers.
Which is why I have NEVER used my real addy.
mail@newsguy.com
Is a valid addy.
Which I did use, with permission.
I was told that since it is not active, any mail sent to it is
automagically trashed.

And then there are the more sophisticated spammers who will use programs to
crack your login password so they can send mail as if it came from you.
I know. I've been hit twice that way.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11003

richard the sto0pid wrote:

> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> richard @shut.the.fuck.up.stupid wrote:
>>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>> Twayne wrote:
>>>>> Just an idle comment on those who use invalid.com for e-mail
>>>>> addresses:
>>>>> 
>>>>> invalid.com is a legit e-mail address; try it.
>>>> 
>>>> Better is to use example.com as it is designed for the purpose. Even
>>>> better than that is example.invalid
>>>> 
>>>> Any made-up user name to the left of the @ that uses a valid domain
>>>> name to the right will flood the server of the owner of that valid
>>>> domain, regardless if the user name is legitimate or not.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for pointing out this problem.
>>> 
>>> Really?
>> 
>> Yes, bullis, really.
>> 
>>> I wasn't aware that simply posting an addy cause email to be sent to
>>> that addy.
>>> Is this some new feature of usenet?
>> 
>> In all your years, I suppose it is possible that you have never heard
>> of email address harvesting on Usenet by spammers. Okay, I get that.
>> You've learned something new tonight.
>> 
>> BTW, bullis@shut.the.fuck.up.stupid will still cause the servers the
>> spammers use to attempt to *send* mail to shut.the.fuck.up.stupid. They
>> will *not* attempt to send to example.com or something.invalid (because
>> they are configured that way).
> 
> Yes you have it wrong.
> Usenet addy's by themselves DO NOT send email.
> They are collected and abused by spammers.

Well, duh!  Is that some sort of backpedalling statement? What part of 
"harvesting" was too far over your brow?

> Which is why I have NEVER used my real addy.
> mail@newsguy.com Is a valid addy.
> Which I did use, with permission.
> I was told that since it is not active, any mail sent to it is
> automagically trashed.

Sure, the mail can be trashed. The idea with using an .invalid TLD is to 
prevent the *sending* of any mail *in the first place.* Why clog the pipe 
if you don't have to?

> And then there are the more sophisticated spammers who will use programs
> to crack your login password so they can send mail as if it came from
> you.
> I know. I've been hit twice that way.

..none of which has anything to do with the topic being discussed.

-- 
   -bts
   -This space for rent, but the price is high

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11005

On Fri, 04 Oct 2013 03:50:55 +0000, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

> Okay, I get that. You've learned something new tonight.

Your comment presumes that he is capable of learning anything. Archives 
of this group suggest otherwise.

-- 
Denis McMahon, denismfmcmahon@gmail.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11006

Denis McMahon wrote:

> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> Okay, I get that. You've learned something new tonight.
> 
> Your comment presumes that he is capable of learning anything. Archives
> of this group suggest otherwise.

I understand. I suppose I was having a benevolent moment when I wrote 
that. I'll try to do better in the future.   :-)

-- 
   -bts
   -This space for rent, but the price is high

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11287

On 2013-10-03 11:50 PM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> richard @shut.the.fuck.up.stupid wrote:
>
>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>>> Twayne wrote:
>>>> Just an idle comment on those who use invalid.com for e-mail
>>>> addresses:
>>>>
>>>> invalid.com is a legit e-mail address; try it.
>>>
>>> Better is to use example.com as it is designed for the purpose. Even
>>> better than that is example.invalid
>>>
>>> Any made-up user name to the left of the @ that uses a valid domain
>>> name to the right will flood the server of the owner of that valid
>>> domain, regardless if the user name is legitimate or not.
>>>
>>> Thanks for pointing out this problem.
>>
>> Really?
>
> Yes, bullis, really.
>
>> I wasn't aware that simply posting an addy cause email to be
>> sent to that addy.
>> Is this some new feature of usenet?
>
> In all your years, I suppose it is possible that you have never heard of
> email address harvesting on Usenet by spammers. Okay, I get that. You've
> learned something new tonight.
>
> BTW, bullis@shut.the.fuck.up.stupid will still cause the servers the
> spammers use to attempt to *send* mail to shut.the.fuck.up.stupid. They
> will *not* attempt to send to example.com or something.invalid (because
> they are configured that way).
>

You forget, invalid.com will load into your browser; they used to have 
email addresses too, before the registrars started threatening them.
    example.com is in the same boat with several derivatives already 
floating around.

Bass turds like you abound around the 'net.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11296

On Fri, 04 Oct 2013 19:33:28 -0400, Twayne wrote:
> You forget, invalid.com will load into your browser; they used to have 
> email addresses too, before the registrars started threatening them.
>     example.com is in the same boat with several derivatives already 
> floating around.

Not the same boat at all. invalid.com is a legitimate domain as far as
the infrastucture is concerned. example.com is not.

   Domain Name: INVALID.COM
   Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC.	    <---
   Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
   Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com/en_US/
   Name Server: NS3.JODOSHARED.COM
   Name Server: NS4.JODOSHARED.COM
   Status: clientTransferProhibited
   Updated Date: 26-mar-2013
   Creation Date: 04-aug-1997
   Expiration Date: 03-aug-2014


   Domain Name: EXAMPLE.COM
   Registrar: RESERVED-INTERNET ASSIGNED NUMBERS AUTHORITY <--
   Whois Server: whois.iana.org
   Referral URL: http://res-dom.iana.org
   Name Server: A.IANA-SERVERS.NET
   Name Server: B.IANA-SERVERS.NET
   Status: clientDeleteProhibited
   Status: clientTransferProhibited
   Status: clientUpdateProhibited
   Updated Date: 14-aug-2013
   Creation Date: 14-aug-1995
   Expiration Date: 13-aug-2014


-- 
Don't eat things hawked by cartoon characters or people concealing their
identities, including masks or clown makeup. It doesn't end well.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11299

On 2013-10-05 2:54 PM, Peter H. Coffin wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Oct 2013 19:33:28 -0400, Twayne wrote:
>> You forget, invalid.com will load into your browser; they used to have
>> email addresses too, before the registrars started threatening them.
>>      example.com is in the same boat with several derivatives already
>> floating around.
>
> Not the same boat at all. invalid.com is a legitimate domain as far as
> the infrastucture is concerned. example.com is not.

It certainly is, as your own whois shows. Get your facts straight or 
quit whining about such obvious things. Boy you're thick.
>
>     Domain Name: INVALID.COM
>     Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC.	    <---
>     Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
>     Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com/en_US/
>     Name Server: NS3.JODOSHARED.COM
>     Name Server: NS4.JODOSHARED.COM
>     Status: clientTransferProhibited
>     Updated Date: 26-mar-2013
>     Creation Date: 04-aug-1997
>     Expiration Date: 03-aug-2014
>
>

It's a legit site with a purpose: or is that too hard to understand? 
Have you ever typed example.com into your browser bar?  It very clearly 
states:
-----------------

Example Domain

This domain is established to be used for illustrative examples in 
documents. You may use this domain in examples without prior 
coordination or asking for permission.

More information...
-----------------

The Horse's Mouth is worth much more than your horse's A$$.

>     Domain Name: EXAMPLE.COM
>     Registrar: RESERVED-INTERNET ASSIGNED NUMBERS AUTHORITY <--
>     Whois Server: whois.iana.org
>     Referral URL: http://res-dom.iana.org
>     Name Server: A.IANA-SERVERS.NET
>     Name Server: B.IANA-SERVERS.NET
>     Status: clientDeleteProhibited
>     Status: clientTransferProhibited
>     Status: clientUpdateProhibited
>     Updated Date: 14-aug-2013
>     Creation Date: 14-aug-1995
>     Expiration Date: 13-aug-2014
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.php

csiph-web