From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55E8F138010 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:12:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 33AD5E0A98; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:11:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtpout.karoo.kcom.com (smtpout.karoo.kcom.com [212.50.160.34]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE2D7E0A59 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:11:55 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,367,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="7384857" Received: from 213-152-39-89.dsl.eclipse.net.uk (HELO compaq.stroller.uk.eu.org) ([213.152.39.89]) by smtpout.karoo.kcom.com with ESMTP; 28 Mar 2013 19:11:36 +0000 Received: from [192.168.11.4] (unknown [192.168.11.4]) by compaq.stroller.uk.eu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 958AD12695 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:10:52 +0000 (GMT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Best whois client? From: Stroller In-Reply-To: <515382C3.3080408@orlitzky.com> Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:11:31 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <5D0EC0C7-8302-4C94-B5E9-E95BA916213F@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> <5151EF8E.4030304@gmail.com> <201303271008.37617.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> <515382C3.3080408@orlitzky.com> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) X-Archives-Salt: c80b0632-cd87-4b59-948c-3f5a10781f10 X-Archives-Hash: 577b33b45e8a06fae7af579f1906548d On 27 March 2013, at 23:37, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> ... >> Like Stroller I've been using net-misc/whois for ever and it does >> what I want, but don't know what the other packages may be able to >> do/do better. I would also be interested to find out why people >> prefer using these. >=20 > They're all identical. The whois protocol is stupid simple The search I made before posting led me the wikipedia article which = mentioned, for example, using thick and thin client models. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whois#Thin_and_thick_lookups One might assume, for example, that a thin client might tend to give = more accurate and up-to-date information, but of course there's also the = issue that the whois server for the domain might move. Thus the client = might need to be updated in a timely manner, too. I have a Gentoo box here that, embarrassingly, hasn't been updated in = several years. It seems to sometimes give different results than my = laptop does.=20 Stroller.