nanog mailing list archives
Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
From: Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:42:09 -0400 (EDT)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Finch" <dot () dotat at>
Trailing dots are not permitted on mail domains.
I couldn't believe that, so I went and checked 5322. Tony's right: there is no way to write an email address which is deterministic, unless mail servers ignore the DNS search path. At least, that's what it sounds like to me.
There has been an ongoing argument about the interaction between unqualified domains and TLDs in mail domains. RFC 2821 said single-label mail domains were syntax errors, but this was probably an editorial mistake and RFC 5321 permits them. It's probably safest to assume that a single-label mail domain is a local unqualified domain which will have its qualifying labels appended by the message submission server, and in other contexts all bets are off.
In fact what matters is what the processing rules and code of mail servers *do* with monocomponent RHSs. Do they try to apply the server's DNS search path to them? Or whatever's in their configs? Or do they just try to look them up in DNS, monocomponent. Cheers, -- jr 'Eric Allman, Wietse Venema, DJB; please pick up the courtesy phone' a -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra () baylink com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Current thread:
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs, (continued)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Owen DeLong (Jun 20)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Matthew Palmer (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs David Conrad (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Joly MacFie (Jun 20)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs John Levine (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Jay Ashworth (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Mark Andrews (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs John R. Levine (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Mark Andrews (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Tony Finch (Jun 20)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Jay Ashworth (Jun 20)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Adam Atkinson (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Adam Atkinson (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Mark Andrews (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Adam Atkinson (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Jay Ashworth (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Owen DeLong (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs John Levine (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Mark Andrews (Jun 19)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Florian Weimer (Jun 20)
- Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs Adam Atkinson (Jun 20)