Questions to ICM Registry on .XXX Announcements at Ynot
 

1. At the Pros and Cons of .XXX at Ynot it was announced that ICM Registry would be providing McAfee Secure to all domain buyers. My question is, will this be a requirement? I have to ask because as a web host I have many different levels of users, from sole proprietors to larger companies. Some of our clients do use McAfee Secure and have found it will suggest a domain is unsecure if PHP or other server software is not up to date with the latest releases. I know many business owners do not jump right into new updates because they must see how it affects their custom scripts or what changes they must make to their scripts before the update can be successful. What will happen to their .xxx domains? Will there be a time table from McAfee or ICM Registry that will require compliance of being secure for the .XXX owners?

2. It was announced that ICM Registry would be providing search.xxx to help .XXX domain owners get traffic. That sounds wonderful but it does raise another question for me. Will at any time ICM Registry be able to block other search engines from being able to spider .XXX. I know this can be done at the domain and server level, but I have never owned a TLD so I do not know if this is possible, so this is an ?if? question. If you can, will you? If you can in the future, will you?

Happy Independence Day to everyone.

Happy Independence Day :thumbsup

Q) What is the easiest way to avoid all of the complications and nonsense regarding .XXX?

A) Easy, just boycott .XXX on all levels! Don't buy any such domains, and if you are a host - don't host any .XXX sites.

No one feeds the beast, so the beast dies.

Problem solved! :thumbsup

Regarding McAfee, they don't care if it will hurt their customers with false positives.

They're just doing that so there is another reason to make xxx mandatory.

Will they provide me free hookers and blow if I buy a .XXX domain?

McAfee Secure is a nightmare for site owners and doesn't provide surfers with any kind of guarantee that they are visiting a 'safe site'.

McAfee is notorious for its false positives. Legit sites get listed as being insecure and it's always a lot of trouble to get this rectified.

For surfers, there is no reason to assume that a site that is reported to be safe by McAfee is in fact really safe for surfers. Site owners or criminals who hack the server on which a site's content resides can easily detect McAfee's bots and configure the server to return a "clean website" to McAfee's bots and infected content to normal surfers.

This whole thing is actually a good example of why people shouldn't buy .xxx domains. The .xxx stld is being run by a company that obviously has little to no understanding of how things work and just made a deal with an antivirus company in an attempt to add (the illusion of) value to their product, but ended up creating potential problems for its customers.

That is funny, I have yet to have one of our customers suggest McAfee was a nightmare. If it was, I highly doubt they would be voluntarily paying for and using it.

Simpleton.

care to elaborate?

While technically they could throw up some hurdles, it would be trivial to bypass those.

Trivial? Not really, "if" it became required to use .XXX and then they blocked other spiders, they then own adult search.

Happy Independence Day

Yes. You are a simpleton.

Trivial? Care to elaborate?

https://gfy.com/image.php?u=6600&dateline=1309384693:jerkoff

Sounds to me like ICM is going to have it's own search engine so it can control XXX searches.

This will never work. No one in the industry will be into this, and a large percentage of surfers will not be able to view XXX. This is a joke.

the fastest way to avoid their stupidity is to not get any .xxx domains. stay away from people trying to dictate how you do business.

Fuck the dotxxx tld.

You were there. You KNOW they are going to have their own SE, or you were not paying attention. The question is, will they be blocking other SE's from spidering .xxx sites.

Those questions are aimed at .XXX, so why not ask them?

I wasn't aware that .XXX was on the board ready to answer questions like this and if they were would you believe them?

:thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup

You are naive if you think they do not monitor GFY. :2 cents:

Ok, search engines use bots to spider sites. Those bots are in essence programs that visits web pages, save the content in a db, extract the links, visit those pages etc etc.

To visit a page, the bot first needs the ip address of the server on which the content is located. So the bot extracts the hostname from the url and lookups up the IP address.
The domain name system is hierarchical in nature. So let's say gotxxx.xxx belongs to the top-level domain xxx. The ICM Registry controls the records for xxx tld. So in theory it would be possible for the ICM Registry to return different info in reply to nslookups made by computers using IP addresses that the ICM knows are being used by let's say Google than they would in reply to nslookups made by others.
So to 'block' Googlebot effectively the ICM would need to be sure they know every IP address Google uses (and constantly update their database). In theory this would be possible but extremely inefficient.
To circumvent this Google could simply run their queries against nameservers that are also being used by large amounts of surfers. The ICM cannot prevent this, they can't even detect this. And even if they could detect it, blocking thsoe queries would mean that the ICM itself would be preventing large amounts of surfers from visiting .xxx sites.

(for more info on the dns system: rfc1035, rfc1123, rfc2181)
(for more info on the http protocol: rfc1945, rfc2616)

Interesting response.

If a .XXX rep said "No, we are not planning on blocking other search engines" what would be the point of that answer?

Do you think any right thinking person would then think "Okay then, sounds good I am relieved by that statement." :1orglaugh

They could say absolutely anything and it makes no bearing on what they could do in the future, so a question like this is pointless to begin with.

I find it strange that these questions are being posed on this board.

I think it is time that everyone start twittering McAfee and ask questions.

@McAfeeNews
Will you scan my bdsm.xxx domain for viruses and sexual diseases?
#mcafee #porn #xxx #icmregistry

@McAfeeNews
Can your McAfee porn virusscanner also used for mainstream websites?
#mcafee #porn #xxx #icmregistry

@McAfeeNews
Will your porn virus scanner slow down my hardcore .xxx porn website?
#mcafee #porn #xxx #icmregistry

@McAfeeNews
Is your hardcore porn virusscanner software for .xxx domains compatible with Unix and microsoft?
#mcafee #porn #xxx #icmregistry

@McAfeeNews
Do you keep your software on .xxx updated withoud our hardcore Milfs sites are going down due to failure updates?
#mcafee #porn #xxx #icmregistry

@McAfeeNews
When i scan with my pornsite with McAfeee, will it be keep buffering like pornhub, see here: - link to extreme site -
#mcafee #porn #xxx #icmregistry

@McAfeeNews
Is your hardcore porn virusscanner software for .xxx domains compatible with Unix and microsoft?
#mcafee #porn #xxx #icmregistry



I don't think they like it when 1001 peole start doing that.

BFT3K recommended that we webmasters should't buy any .xxx domains.
BFT3K recommended that hosting companies shouldn't host any .xxx domains.

You replied with the word "Simpleton". I asked you to elaborate and you replied with the word "Simpleton".

Care to elaborate?

This could mean several things:
- you could be using a bot that randomly posts the word "Simpleton". Personally I don't think you are, but I included this because technically it would be possible.

- maybe you think BFT3K is a simpleton based other posts and you just chose this one to express your opinion (unrelated to the subject of this thread or his post).

- maybe you didn't agree with (some part of) BFT3K's post and you chose to express your opinion by calling him names instead of pointing out what (in your opinion) were the flaws in his analysis.
If this is the case, would you care toe explain why you think his post (or part thereof) was incorrect?

think it's time for those on the xxx payroll to come clean.

I did not know they did not have anyone here working for them. Also I figured if they are at the next set of conferences, someone else might be able to ask these questions if I am not there.

someone is testing the waters?

:1orglaugh Baddog 0wned himself in this thread. The SEO hosting expert who does not know how the DNS system works. :1orglaugh

How would they block anyone from spidering a .XXX domain/site? Are they controlling all dns for every .xxx site, instead of allowing you to use your own dns?

I have seen many changes in search engines and adult in the last 13 years. How about another "If". If there is a policy set up that .XXX sites must block other search engines, that would be one way.

Everyone has been talking about asking "If" this happens and "If" that happens. This is just another "If" that could be in their control.

I am intrigued on how they plan on rolling out the search.xxx and what it will really do for adult websites that are .XXX. They said during the Ynot panel that it would be so they can traffic to .XXX domains. I don't remember if they said free traffic for the .XXX domains....I would need to watch the video again. Will do tomorrow, going to have a party right now.

I hope you had a great Canada Day :)

You can't block other search engines that easily, especially not ones who won't obey robots.txt and have hundreds of ip addresses in different blocks. It would be ineffective. I could launch my own xxx search engine and ignore robots.txt, have a dynamic useragent, and a tor based crawler. It's just a ridiculous idea for them to even consider. It would be harmful to all .xxx domain owners.

He has sand in his vagina.

3rd attempt at skinning the cat seems less messy.

There's 2 issues here:
- What "if" the ICM decided to block other spiders?
- What "if" it became required to use.xxx?

What "if" the ICM decided to block other spiders?:
Like I said (and like Brujah said): from a technical point of view there's in no reliable, economically viable, cost effective, efficient way for a tld operator to block se spiders from accessing domains within that tld. At 'best' they will be able to hinder 1 step of the process (resolving the hostname), but this can easily be circumvented.

While I applaud the fact that you are worried about what the ICM might do next and you take the time to try and prevent this from happening by raising awareness, I doubt that this specific potential problem (the ICM monopolizing search within the .xxx tld) will ever become a serious threat.

What "if" it became required to use.xxx?:
Now there lies the real danger (and if we can prevent this one from happening, we at the same time prevent the search.xxx problem you are worried about from happening).

To be honest, the chances that they'll be able to pull this off are very small because that would mean:
- a rise in cost of all non-.xxx domains. something most mainstream people won't like.
- the need for an organization that would police all the non-.xxx domains.
- that all of us in the adult industry to kept our mouths shut (like that's ever gonna happen). As we have shown in the past: we can make a difference. we were able to delay the approval of the .xxx tld for many many years.
- that the ICM would somehow be able to show that they represent us (which they obviously don't).

To fight the potential threat of .xxx ever becoming mandatory we need to:
- shun every person who thinks about doing business with the ICM.
- keep spreading the word that we are not interested in the .xxx tld.
- keep spreading the word that the ICM does not represent us.
- keep spreading the evidence about the ICM's shady history. about the lies they've told us.
- keep refusing to pay the ICM any kind of money. Any dollar you spend on the ICM is a dollar they'll be able to use against you.
- keep ignoring the defeatist comments from have-beens and hired saboteurs.

Baddog is basically a slightly older version Paul Markham. Lol

Or he took lessons from Paul Markham.

Baddog I am sensing that you are neither in the "anti .xxx" camp or the "not worrying either way at this stage" camp. Where does that leave you?

:thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup

He seems a bit pro-.xxx lately doesn't he?

Sometimes you can be intelligent, other times you talk out your ass. :2 cents:

I had an entire network flagged. Host (reflected) went through all sites to confirm false positives and had to fight McAfee to restore positive ratings. It also wasn't because of where we were linking as those sites were cleared by McAfee.

Are there any anti-.xxx buttons or banners we can put on our sites to let surfers know we do not support?

I will happily give up real estate for that.

ICM (hypothetically, because it's impossible) blocking google and yahoo spiders would lower the value of the domains. :2 cents:

Nice idea, but you know that no one is going to do it. Everyone will buy just to protect their brand.

Sometimes you can be intelligent, other times you talk out your ass. :2 cents:

https://gfy.com/image.php?u=6600&dateline=1309384693:jerkoff

I wouldn't trust a search engine being unbiased or redirecting traffic if the search owner gave all the top domains to his buddies and supporters. Yeah, I'm sure you will get a fair deal......