That's why 3M registered mmm.com back in 1988. -- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> wrote: > > In message <20101018024021.gc8...@vacation.karoshi.com.>, > bmann...@vacation.kar > oshi.com writes: >> On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 09:16:04PM -0500, James Hess wrote: >> > On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Day Domes <daydo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data >> > > network. I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see >> > > any issues with this? >> > >> > The domain-name starts with a digit, which is not really recommended, RFC >> 1034, >> > due to the fact a valid actual hostname cannot start with a digit, >> > and, for example, >> > some MTAs/MUAs, that comply with earlier versions of standards still in us >> e, >> > will possibly have a problem sending e-mail to the flat domain, even >> > if the actual hostname is >> > something legal such as mail.101100010100110.net. >> >> if there is code that old still out there, it desrves to die. >> the leading character restriction was lifted when the company >> 3com was created. its been nearly 18 years since that advice >> held true. >> >> > Which goes back to one of the standard-provided definitions of domain >> > name syntax used by RFC 821 page 29: >> > >> > <domain> ::= <element> | <element> "." <domain> >> > <element> ::= <name> | "#" <number> | "[" <dotnum> "]" >> > <mailbox> ::= <local-part> "@" <domain> >> > ... >> > <name> ::= <a> <ldh-str> <let-dig> >> > ... >> > <a> ::= any one of the 52 alphabetic characters A through Z >> > in upper case and a through z in lower case >> > <d> ::= any one of the ten digits 0 through 9 >> >> at least three times in the past decade, the issues of RFC 821 >> vs Domain lables has come up on the DNSEXT mailing list in the >> IETF (or its predacessor). RFC 821 hostnames are not the >> convention for Domain Labels, esp as we enter the age of >> Non-Ascii labels. > > Correct but if you want to be able to send email to them then you > *also* need to follow RFC 821 as modified by RFC 1123 so effectively > you are limited to "<LD><LDH>*<LD>*{.<LD><LDH>*<LD>*}+". > > If you want to buy "!#$%^&*.com" go ahead but please don't expect > anyone to change their mail software to support "b...@!#$%^&*.com" > as a email address. > > The DNS has very liberal labels (any octet stream up to 63 octets > in length). If you want to store information about a host, in the > DNS, using its name then you still need to abide by the rules for > naming hosts. Yes this is spelt out in RFC 1035. > > There are lots of RFCs which confuse "domain name" with "domain > style host name". Or confuse "domain name" with "a host name stored > in the DNS". > > Mark > >> That said, the world was much simpler last century. >> >> --bill >> >> > -- >> > -Jh >> > >> > -- > Mark Andrews, ISC > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org > >