🚀 go-pugleaf

Patrick Coleman wrote:
> 
> "Mike Blackford" <mike@blackford.com> wrote in message
> news:3A271002.94139133@blackford.com...
> > "E-mail and Web connectivity were lost to many of Excite@Home's 2.1
> > million North American customers from Tuesday until Thursday due to a
> > corrupted domain name server database, a company spokeswoman said." [...]
> >
> > "How many Excite@Home customers were without service is unclear. The
> > corruption in the DNS files disabled portions of about 25 percent of the
> > cable system serving North American customers."
> >
> > [http://www.zdnet.com/filters/printerfriendly/0,6061,2659644-2,00.html]
> >
> > "about 25%"???
> > Only if you assume those were the only people actually trying to use the
> > service! These people can't seem to open their mouths without lying.  No
> > wonder their stock is at $6/share and headed to zero.
> 
> I wish the story had included the fact that THEY LIED to customers that
> managed to get through to them...

Considering how dependent ZD is on advertising revenue, it's significant
that they even went this far to describe yet another national outage
that's taking them more than 2 days to fix.  Maybe ZD is also seeing the
handwriting on the wall: Excite@Home, brain dead for at least 2 years, is
doomed to be taken off their outrageously expensive life support system
and whatever decayed tissues remain will be given to some necrologists for
study.

At least ZD had the honesty to call it a "snafu" ... acknowledging it's a
normal situation for Excite@Home to be F'd up.

-- 
~ "emails are NOT lost, just delayed." (Excite@Home, Tue, 03 Oct 2000) ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Zvxr Oynpxsbeq       Fvyvpba Inyyrl, Pnyvsbeavn       zvxr@oynpxsbeq.pbz

On Fri, 01 Dec 2000 02:44:25 GMT, "Patrick Coleman"
<whiteyx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Mike Blackford" <mike@blackford.com> wrote in message
>news:3A271002.94139133@blackford.com...
>> "E-mail and Web connectivity were lost to many of Excite@Home's 2.1
>> million North American customers from Tuesday until Thursday due to a
>> corrupted domain name server database, a company spokeswoman said." [...]
>>
>> "How many Excite@Home customers were without service is unclear. The
>> corruption in the DNS files disabled portions of about 25 percent of the
>> cable system serving North American customers."
>>
>> [http://www.zdnet.com/filters/printerfriendly/0,6061,2659644-2,00.html]
>>
>> "about 25%"???
>> Only if you assume those were the only people actually trying to use the
>> service! These people can't seem to open their mouths without lying.  No
>> wonder their stock is at $6/share and headed to zero.
>>
>
>I wish the story had included the fact that THEY LIED to customers that
>managed to get through to them...
>

Or are they just that stupid? The recorded message said that mail was
down. But news was too, and they failed to mention that. 

On Fri, 01 Dec 2000 12:08:06 GMT, Oliver Costich <olc-ca@home.com> wrote:
>
>Or are they just that stupid? The recorded message said that mail was
>down. But news was too, and they failed to mention that. 
>

The reason news is not mentioned is because they do not want
the average user to know about usenet news.

In article <335f2tsludl29rlh6sjc8tu65bm1cs6b2d@4ax.com>,
Oliver Costich <olc-ca@home.com> says:

>Or are they just that stupid? The recorded message said that mail was
>down. But news was too, and they failed to mention that. 

Actually, news *was* up, but their DNS SOA (Start of Authority) information
was either missing or corrupted, so you couldn't get to 'em except via
an IP address.

Here's the funny part: I did a "whois" on HOME-DOM (the home.com top-level)
and found their primary DNS servers, NS1- and NS2- .home.net (24.0.0.27 and
24.2.0.27, respectively). "nslookup" using "server ns[12].home.net was able
to resolve every @Home address correctly- I used it to verify the news server
was up in the SFBA. I'm not sure why their top-level info didn't cascade out,
since it appeared to be valid- probably due to caching issues and/or TTL
values.

	-Kenny

-- 
Kenneth R. Crudup   Sr. SW Engineer, Scott County Consulting, Washington, D.C.
Home1: PO Box 914     		Silver Spring, MD 20910-0914   kenny@panix.com
Home2: 38010 Village Cmn. #217  Fremont, CA 94536-7525		(510) 745-8181
Work:  See: "Home2". The hell with slow Bay Area drivers!	(510) 745-0101

On Fri, 01 Dec 2000 22:08:39 GMT, kenny@panix.com (Kenneth Crudup)
wrote:

>In article <335f2tsludl29rlh6sjc8tu65bm1cs6b2d@4ax.com>,
>Oliver Costich <olc-ca@home.com> says:
>
>>Or are they just that stupid? The recorded message said that mail was
>>down. But news was too, and they failed to mention that. 
>
>Actually, news *was* up, but their DNS SOA (Start of Authority) information
>was either missing or corrupted, so you couldn't get to 'em except via
>an IP address.

Tried the few IPs I had for news servers with no success. Inaddition,
last night I tried to set up a web site using Web Space. I can upload
with ftp and check that it's there. I worked once since then and took
4 minutes to start loading the home page. As I write this, email is
out again.

I've only has @home since last Tuesday night and I'm underwhelmed by
their ability to get anything to work reliably.

>
>Here's the funny part: I did a "whois" on HOME-DOM (the home.com top-level)
>and found their primary DNS servers, NS1- and NS2- .home.net (24.0.0.27 and
>24.2.0.27, respectively). "nslookup" using "server ns[12].home.net was able
>to resolve every @Home address correctly- I used it to verify the news server
>was up in the SFBA. I'm not sure why their top-level info didn't cascade out,
>since it appeared to be valid- probably due to caching issues and/or TTL
>values.
>
>	-Kenny

"Mike Blackford" <mike@blackford.com> wrote in message
news:3A271002.94139133@blackford.com...
> "E-mail and Web connectivity were lost to many of Excite@Home's 2.1
> million North American customers from Tuesday until Thursday due to a
> corrupted domain name server database, a company spokeswoman said." [...]
>
> "How many Excite@Home customers were without service is unclear. The
> corruption in the DNS files disabled portions of about 25 percent of the
> cable system serving North American customers."
>
> [http://www.zdnet.com/filters/printerfriendly/0,6061,2659644-2,00.html]
>
> "about 25%"???
> Only if you assume those were the only people actually trying to use the
> service! These people can't seem to open their mouths without lying.  No
> wonder their stock is at $6/share and headed to zero.
>

I wish the story had included the fact that THEY LIED to customers that
managed to get through to them...

On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 07:16:53 -0500, Willy B. Back
<willybback@athomesucks.com> wrote:

>there is a program called ExtraDNS. One of the features is to allow up
>to 10 DNS servers..plus it keeps a local version of DNS lookups....it
>got me thru the outage
>

Where do you get ExtaDNS?

>
>On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 05:51:03 GMT, Barry@netbox.com (Barry Twycross)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <HjVV5.491077$i5.8832493@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>,
>>kenny@panix.com wrote:
>>
>>>Here's the funny part: I did a "whois" on HOME-DOM (the home.com top-level)
>>>and found their primary DNS servers, NS1- and NS2- .home.net (24.0.0.27 and
>>>24.2.0.27, respectively). "nslookup" using "server ns[12].home.net was able
>>>to resolve every @Home address correctly- I used it to verify the news server
>>>was up in the SFBA. I'm not sure why their top-level info didn't cascade out,
>>>since it appeared to be valid- probably due to caching issues and/or TTL
>>>values.
>>
>>When I was using cable, and the DNS went down (not infrequently) I pointed
>>my DNS to those servers and everything was fine. When those servers stopped
>>working I pointed it back at the ones I've been given.
>>
>>They don't seem to be able to keep DNS's running, and don't seem to treat
>>it as a high priority when they do go down.
>
>

I have been down since Thanksgiving and still I dont have service ,
Lucky me I got my dsl hooked up last month , @ Home fucking sucks .


On Fri, 01 Dec 2000 02:42:10 GMT, Mike Blackford <mike@blackford.com>
wrote:

>"E-mail and Web connectivity were lost to many of Excite@Home's 2.1
>million North American customers from Tuesday until Thursday due to a
>corrupted domain name server database, a company spokeswoman said." [...]
>
>"How many Excite@Home customers were without service is unclear. The
>corruption in the DNS files disabled portions of about 25 percent of the
>cable system serving North American customers."
>
>[http://www.zdnet.com/filters/printerfriendly/0,6061,2659644-2,00.html]
>
>"about 25%"???  
>Only if you assume those were the only people actually trying to use the
>service! These people can't seem to open their mouths without lying.  No
>wonder their stock is at $6/share and headed to zero.
>
>-- 
>~ "What's wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, ~
>~~~~~~~~~~ which is the exact opposite."  (Bertrand Russell) ~~~~~~~~~~~
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Zvxr Oynpxsbeq       Fvyvpba Inyyrl, Pnyvsbeavn       zvxr@oynpxsbeq.pbz

In article <HjVV5.491077$i5.8832493@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>,
kenny@panix.com wrote:

>Here's the funny part: I did a "whois" on HOME-DOM (the home.com top-level)
>and found their primary DNS servers, NS1- and NS2- .home.net (24.0.0.27 and
>24.2.0.27, respectively). "nslookup" using "server ns[12].home.net was able
>to resolve every @Home address correctly- I used it to verify the news server
>was up in the SFBA. I'm not sure why their top-level info didn't cascade out,
>since it appeared to be valid- probably due to caching issues and/or TTL
>values.

When I was using cable, and the DNS went down (not infrequently) I pointed
my DNS to those servers and everything was fine. When those servers stopped
working I pointed it back at the ones I've been given.

They don't seem to be able to keep DNS's running, and don't seem to treat
it as a high priority when they do go down.

-- 
Barry
Barry@netbox.com                       <http://www.netbox.com/barry>
                           ------
           (Obsolete sig deleted).

On Fri, 01 Dec 2000 14:27:40 GMT, BitTwister@localhost.localdomain
(Bit Twister) wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Dec 2000 12:08:06 GMT, Oliver Costich <olc-ca@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>Or are they just that stupid? The recorded message said that mail was
>>down. But news was too, and they failed to mention that. 
>>
>
>The reason news is not mentioned is because they do not want
>the average user to know about usenet news.

do you blame them?
have you ever been in a NG with a lot of webTV users??
it's awful.

---------------------------------------------------
Go here to contact me
http://www.corpsie.com/contact/mail.html
Read About NetiQuette
http://www.corpsie.com/newgroups/001-netiquette.html
FAQ for alt.music.rap-metal
http://www.corpsie.com/newgroups/002-rapmetal-faq.html

In article <Barry-ya02408000R0112002153010001@news.sonic.net>,
Barry Twycross <Barry@netbox.com> wrote:
>When I was using cable, and the DNS went down (not infrequently) I pointed
>my DNS to those servers and everything was fine. When those servers stopped
>working I pointed it back at the ones I've been given.
>
>They don't seem to be able to keep DNS's running, and don't seem to treat
>it as a high priority when they do go down.

You know, the first day that their dns failed to serve me, I cut my
losses and switched over to a local dns server.  I didn't even notice
anything was up, until I tried to hit up news.  Glad I did.