Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet
Richard Hector wrote:
> This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="W7QULzTEwHyPVYL9CjAwUAkHYtJwwuUvr";
> From: Richard Hector <email@example.com>
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Message-ID: <[🔎] email@example.com>
> Subject: Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet
> References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> <[🔎] 20180320220747.GA14927@alum> <[🔎] email@example.com>
> <[🔎] 20180321195347.GD7863@alum> <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
> In-Reply-To: <[🔎] email@example.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> Content-Language: en-US
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> On 22/03/18 09:21, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>> One heuristic that is commonly used is to reject all messages where
>> the HELO doesn't even syntactically qualify as a valid FQDN -- in other=
>> words, has no dot in it.
> I often see this alluded to, but struggle to find evidence - why
> shouldn't there be a postmaster@com, for example? Or perhaps cic@mil?
> Is there any reason you can't have an A, MX or any other record on a
> TLD? Or even the root, though I concede that abuse@. would be easier to
> understand than just abuse@ [attempts to end sentence without a dot]
It is my understanding that the TLDs are not themselves valid domains.
That is, a valid domain is by definition "domain.tld".
I could be entirely wrong though.
|_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281