[142149] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Blake Dunlap)
Sun Jun 19 14:06:31 2011
In-Reply-To: <1905522.656.1308361667262.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com>
From: Blake Dunlap <ikiris@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 13:05:25 -0500
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Now I'm tempted to be the guy that gets .mail
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 20:47, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
>
> > >The notion of a single-component FQDN would be quite a breakage for
> > >the basic concept of using both FQDNs and Unqualified names.
> >
> > Well, you know, there's a guy whose email address has been n@ai for
> > many years. People have varying amounts of success sending him mail.
>
> My Zimbra UI says it "might be invalid"; the default postfix config inside
> it tries to send it to n@ai.baylink.com, and complains because the domain
> won't resolve.
>
> If I'm reading 3.2.4 of 2822 properly (that notation is one I'm not
> entirely familiar with, and should be), that really is a valid 2822
> address, as odd as it sounds.
>
> Clearly, it's semantics are unexpected, though. I guess I should go hang
> a bug on it.
>
> Cheers,
> -- jra
> --
> 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
>
>
