In message <199806190527.NAA26249&#167;gospel.iinet.net.au>, Kim Davies writes:
>What's with these analogies that make no sense? The purpose of using them
>is to relate a characteristic of a known situation to what you're trying
>to describe.  

its simply a case of attempting to avoid the issue.

no answer from adam on the issues raised.  i guess this signals that
(a) nope, there isn't any real uptake of his servers, and (b) the
'.aus' nameservers aren't actually RFC2010 compliant.

"Hic puer est stultisimus omnium!!!" (probably spent wrong, but anyway..)


i'm also still attempting to work out who "leigh" is, that adam keeps
referring to.  going back through my archive of this list (to early
november 1996), I can't find any other references to a person called
"leigh".
( .. unless i've been completely mistaken all my life, and my name isn't
actually "lincoln". )

>| Oh you guys are really turning into an entertaining pot of inexperience and
>| lack of information.
>
>Oh yeah.

the info i collected in finding out the caching nameservers large isps use,
this could be something useful for you to index in the ISP list you keep.
waddya think?  it'd be a useful way of finding out the exact (lack-of) uptake
of certain bogus root-nameservers.

cheers,

lincoln.

NB. at least there is some discussion going on about the ".au"
namespace, even if the signal:noise ratio is a little low.