On Wed Sep 19 14:31:52 2001, Mark Fowler wrote: > Marty pontificated about: > > > Marty (pedantic) Pauley <(his)perl(mailbox)@(his domain called)kasei(under >the).com(tld)> > > Well, if we're going to be pedantic, don't you need a "." after the com in > order to really mean it's a tld. No. Adding a . after the com would make the address invalid. Also, the TLD is called "COM", not "COM.". > One day I'm going to install a host called 'com' or 'org' and watch the > fallout. It won't cause any problems for us. The domain part of an email address must be fully qualified once the message crosses a domain boundary. There are already many hosts with the same name as a TLD. net.com is one example. -- Marty
- Pipermail email address parse bug? Paul Makepeace
- Re: Pipermail email address parse bug? Matthew Byng-Maddick
- Re: Pipermail email address parse bug? Matthew Byng-Maddick
- Re: Pipermail email address parse bug? Paul Makepeace
- Re: Pipermail email address parse bug? Matthew Byng-Maddick
- Re: Pipermail email address parse bug? Marty Pauley
- Re: Pipermail email address parse bug? Matthew Byng-Maddick
- Re: Pipermail email address parse bug? Mark Fowler
- Re: Pipermail email address parse bug? Matthew Byng-Maddick
- Re: Pipermail email address parse bug? Newton, Philip
- Re: Pipermail email address parse bug? Marty Pauley
- Re: Pipermail email address parse bug? Newton, Philip
- Re: Pipermail email address parse bug? Paul Makepeace
- Re: Pipermail email address parse bug? Marty Pauley
- Re: Pipermail email address parse bug? Newton, Philip