[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ICANN-EU] Re: Don't waste your endorsement
- To: Lutz Donnerhacke <lutz@iks-jena.de>
- Subject: Re: [ICANN-EU] Re: Don't waste your endorsement
- From: Marc Schneiders <marc@venster.nl>
- Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 00:04:12 +0200 (MEST)
- cc: Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>, icann-europe@fitug.de
- Comment: This message comes from the icann-europe mailing list.
- In-Reply-To: <20000907152718.H22192@belenus.iks-jena.de>
- Sender: owner-icann-europe@fitug.de
On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, Lutz Donnerhacke wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 02:05:39PM +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> > At 12:01 07/09/00, Lutz wrote:
> > >BTW: $ nslookup -q=any bofh
> > > bofh internet address = 193.174.15.34
> > > bofh preference = 10, mail exchanger = jengate.thur.de
> > > bofh nameserver = jengate.thur.de
>
> > >See my point?
> >
> > Sorry, I dont (but I wear a low IQ is low).
> > Could you explain (I am not teasing). Thx.
>
> You IQ is sufficient enough, but you never cross this problem. The point is,
> that any address part can not only be a source of subtrees but also a valid
> address by itself. In this case the TLD bofh (mine, not an official one)
> serves as ordinary address, too. I can be reached as <hostmaster@bofh>.
> There is a server call 'bofh' with an IP address.
>
> If such practice occurs on new TLDs (which is very likely) you will run into
Why is this very likely? Why would "they" do that? Why would they follow
.BOFH usage in stead of the more accepted .COM usage? Did you do a new RFC
they will all follow, based on .BOFH practices?
I have no idea why you bring this up.
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Marc Schneiders ------- Venster - http://www.venster.nl %
%* marc@venster.nl - marc@bijt.net - marc@schneiders.org *%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%