On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 00:12:17 PDT, "william(at)elan.net" said:
On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu wrote:
Can you give an example of a "single-component domain name" that would *not*
be flagged as a failure to canonalize to a FQDN?
Are there any e-mail addresses that *work* (or even could *potentially*
of the form 'userid(_at_)com' or 'userid(_at_)net' or
'some(_dot_)full(_dot_)name(_at_)to' or anything
else like that?
ws. 21600 IN MX 10 mail.worldsite.ws.
Gaak. I hope that's not a wildcard MX. ;)
A 4AM re-reading of 2821 seems to indicate that's a *legal* setup. But
I suspect there are *so* many software packages that will try to convert
'@ws' to a FQDN at message submission time as per 2821, section 6.3:
The following changes to a message being processed MAY be applied
when necessary by an originating SMTP server, or one used as the
target of SMTP as an initial posting protocol:
- Addition of a message-id field when none appears
- Addition of a date, time or time zone when none appears
- Correction of addresses to proper FQDN format
(For instance, on my Fedora Linux box, the default resolv.conf setting of
'options ndots:1' means that 'ws' will be canonalized to a FQDN, while
'ws.' will behave the way Yuri apparently expects 'ws' to work. Now
try to explain to your average end user why 'postmaster(_at_)ws' and
'postmaster(_at_)ws(_dot_)' do different things....
Description: PGP signature