On 8 Apr 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.protocols.tcp-ip, in article
<1176056195.278088.228810@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups. com>, stilmark wrote:

>I'm trying to figure out how to single out a whois record:

>I've tried making sense of the following notice from whois, but so
>farno luck.
>
>To single out one record, look it up with "xxx", where xxx is one of
>the of the records displayed above. If the records are the same, look
>them up with "=xxx" to receive a full display for each record.

Do exactly what it says - precede the domain name with the equal sign.

>Doing a whois for "google.com" reveals a similar result:

[compton ~]$ whois google.com
[whois.internic.net]

Whois Server Version 1.3

Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.

GOOGLE.COM.ZZZZZ.GET.LAID.AT.WWW.SWINGINGCOMMUNITY.COM
GOOGLE.COM.ZOMBIED.AND.HACKED.BY.WWW.WEB-HACK.COM
GOOGLE.COM.WORDT.DOOR.VEEL.WHTERS.GEBRUIKT.SERVERT JE.NET
GOOGLE.COM.VN
GOOGLE.COM.UA
GOOGLE.COM.SUCKS.FIND.CRACKZ.WITH.SEARCH.GULLI.COM
GOOGLE.COM.SPROSIUYANDEKSA.RU
GOOGLE.COM.SA
GOOGLE.COM.PLZ.GIVE.A.PR8.TO.AUDIOTRACKER.NET
GOOGLE.COM.MX
GOOGLE.COM.IS.NOT.HOSTED.BY.ACTIVEDOMAINDNS.NET
GOOGLE.COM.IS.HOSTED.ON.PROFITHOSTING.NET
GOOGLE.COM.IS.APPROVED.BY.NUMEA.COM
GOOGLE.COM.HAS.LESS.FREE.PORN.IN.ITS.SEARCH.ENGINE .THAN.SECZY.COM
GOOGLE.COM.DO
GOOGLE.COM.BR
GOOGLE.COM.AU
GOOGLE.COM

[snip more useless crap]

Ah yes - internic trying to be ful.

[compton ~]$ whois =GOOGLE.COM.ZOMBIED.AND.HACKED.BY.WWW.WEB-HACK.COM
[whois.internic.net]

Whois Server Version 1.3

Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.

Server Name: GOOGLE.COM.ZOMBIED.AND.HACKED.BY.WWW.WEB-HACK.COM
IP Address: 217.107.217.167
Registrar: ONLINENIC, INC.
Whois Server: whois.OnlineNIC.com
Referral URL: http://www.OnlineNIC.com

[snip more boiler plate]

Now the fact that RFC0952 didn't intend the 'dot' character to be used
as a part of the domain name has to be tempered with the fact that the
ISO-3166 domains really have a need for second level domains, and those
would be separated by dots. The dot used as a separator is also a
requirement in RFC1035. But clearly some registrars are ignoring
this concept in their quest for registration fees.

Old guy