Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
domain names: how many dots after the at sign?
3,287 views
Skip to first unread message
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Jul 30, 2016, 10:48:20 AM7/30/16
to
The "latest from" thread has made me wonder: What (RFC? something else?)
determines the maximum and minimum number of dots in a domain name?
Is the bit after the @ in an email address closely linked (in practice -
I know there are differences) to the bit between http(s):// and the
first (subsequent) / in a web URL?
There are plenty of one-dot cases: bt.com, and so on. (Not just .com -
.me, and various others, though .com seems to be by far the commonest.
And three letters after the dot also seems to be the commonest.)
There are two-dot cases - mostly country-based, such as *.co.uk; in
fact, are there any that aren't country-based? (Can one-dot ones have
"subdomains" - something.bt.com for example?)
The only three-dot ones I'm _aware_ of are sub-domains, like the
*.demon.co.uk ones, of two-dot ones. (Actually, I don't _think_ I've
ever seen one where the last part isn't .uk, though I may have.)
I don't think I've ever seen either a four-dot one or a zero-dot one. (I
have in web URLs on private networks: for example, where I work at
Rochester, the in-house gadget [sort of a company noticeboard] can be
downloaded from, IIRR, http://roch/gadget.)
So what does control (or advise, or whatever) on this matter? It has
always struck me as something that everyone assumes everyone knows, but
...
(I'm also with [Sir] Tim Berners-Lee: when asked if he'd have done
anything differently, he said he'd have [a] left out the "www" [which
has more or less happened by now] and [b] put the com _first_ [which
hasn't].)
Actually, that makes me think - the "www." _does_ add an extra dot, so
old Demon website addresses - www.hostname.demon.co.uk - _were_ four-dot
ones. So there's nothing in the system to _prevent_ four dots. (more?)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
"Where's Piglet?" asked Pooh, as he munched a pork pie.
determines the maximum and minimum number of dots in a domain name?
Is the bit after the @ in an email address closely linked (in practice -
I know there are differences) to the bit between http(s):// and the
first (subsequent) / in a web URL?
There are plenty of one-dot cases: bt.com, and so on. (Not just .com -
.me, and various others, though .com seems to be by far the commonest.
And three letters after the dot also seems to be the commonest.)
There are two-dot cases - mostly country-based, such as *.co.uk; in
fact, are there any that aren't country-based? (Can one-dot ones have
"subdomains" - something.bt.com for example?)
The only three-dot ones I'm _aware_ of are sub-domains, like the
*.demon.co.uk ones, of two-dot ones. (Actually, I don't _think_ I've
ever seen one where the last part isn't .uk, though I may have.)
I don't think I've ever seen either a four-dot one or a zero-dot one. (I
have in web URLs on private networks: for example, where I work at
Rochester, the in-house gadget [sort of a company noticeboard] can be
downloaded from, IIRR, http://roch/gadget.)
So what does control (or advise, or whatever) on this matter? It has
always struck me as something that everyone assumes everyone knows, but
...
(I'm also with [Sir] Tim Berners-Lee: when asked if he'd have done
anything differently, he said he'd have [a] left out the "www" [which
has more or less happened by now] and [b] put the com _first_ [which
hasn't].)
Actually, that makes me think - the "www." _does_ add an extra dot, so
old Demon website addresses - www.hostname.demon.co.uk - _were_ four-dot
ones. So there's nothing in the system to _prevent_ four dots. (more?)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
"Where's Piglet?" asked Pooh, as he munched a pork pie.
Simon Clubley
Jul 30, 2016, 11:31:09 AM7/30/16
to
On 2016-07-30, J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> The "latest from" thread has made me wonder: What (RFC? something else?)
> determines the maximum and minimum number of dots in a domain name?
>
I can't remember the last time I looked at the DNS RFCs so I cannot
> The "latest from" thread has made me wonder: What (RFC? something else?)
> determines the maximum and minimum number of dots in a domain name?
>
answer this.
> Is the bit after the @ in an email address closely linked (in practice -
> I know there are differences) to the bit between http(s):// and the
> first (subsequent) / in a web URL?
>
comes from the DNS MX records. Furthermore, you can have multiple
website domains at one physical webserver; the Host: field in the
HTTP headers tells the webserver which domain to serve up.
Multiple email domains can be hosted at one physical email server
as well.
>
> (I'm also with [Sir] Tim Berners-Lee: when asked if he'd have done
> anything differently, he said he'd have [a] left out the "www" [which
> has more or less happened by now] and [b] put the com _first_ [which
> hasn't].)
>
JANET "fun" all over again. :-)
Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world
David Rance
Jul 30, 2016, 2:06:59 PM7/30/16
to
On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 12:40:49 J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>The "latest from" thread has made me wonder: What (RFC? something
>else?) determines the maximum and minimum number of dots in a domain
>name?
The following is how I understand the subject. I may be wrong in certain
>The "latest from" thread has made me wonder: What (RFC? something
>else?) determines the maximum and minimum number of dots in a domain
>name?
respects in which case I'm sure some will come to my aid!
The minimum number of dots must be one. I don't think there is a maximum
number. The last bit of the address is the top level domain. The top
level domain then has to route a query to the next level so that there
must be at least one dot.
>
>Is the bit after the @ in an email address closely linked (in practice
>- I know there are differences) to the bit between http(s):// and the
>first (subsequent) / in a web URL?
I would have said yes, but Simon doesn't agree. What he says is that it
>Is the bit after the @ in an email address closely linked (in practice
>- I know there are differences) to the bit between http(s):// and the
>first (subsequent) / in a web URL?
depends on how you set your forwarding up on your console at the ISP -
which is perfectly true!
>
>There are plenty of one-dot cases: bt.com, and so on. (Not just .com -
>.me, and various others, though .com seems to be by far the commonest.
>And three letters after the dot also seems to be the commonest.)
.com, .org, .net etc., are international top level domains. That is,
>There are plenty of one-dot cases: bt.com, and so on. (Not just .com -
>.me, and various others, though .com seems to be by far the commonest.
>And three letters after the dot also seems to be the commonest.)
they don't actually signify a country. The letters after the last dot
signify the top level domain. and the bit to the left of the dot then
signifies a registered domain for users; thus you have bt.com,
royalmail.com. If an address has a geographical "code" (.fr for France,
.de for Germany, .be for Belgium, .it for Italy and so on; even US
states have their own letter code though we don't see much of them over
here unless you're corresponding with a local user in the States) then
that is the top level domain for that country (or US state) and each
country is responsible for the next bit of the address (or previous bit,
as it were!). The four countries I have mentioned then have a registered
domain immediately to the left of the dot: wanadoo.fr, tin.it,
skynet.be. And if I were in France I could have a domain rance.fr if
no-one else had taken it.
The UK does things slightly differently by introducing another level
before we get the actual domain names, so we have .org.uk, .co.uk,
.gov.uk. So my domain name is rance.org.uk.
If I want to have a subdomain off my domain then that will introduce
another level. For instance my mail server uses mail.rance.org.uk. All
mail for rance.org.uk comes to my server and it's then up to me what to
do with any subdomains that I may have configured. And as far as I know,
it would then be possible to add a sub-sub-domain or even a
sub-sub-sub-domain. I've never tried it but I suppose it would work.
(Actually, now I think of it, I *did* try something of the sort a few
years ago and it worked!)
But things are now getting more complicated as more and more top level
and second level domains are being issued. Just look at an ISP's web
site and you will see what it now available.
Also .uk is now allowing domains without the .co.uk, so rance.uk is now
possible. I can't have it for five years because first refusal goes to
the owner of rance.co.uk
I've also got a domain of rance.me. .Me is a geographical top level
domain though I can't remember which country it is but they have allowed
people from other countries to use it, mainly English speaking
obviously, because it looks more personal. Namesco will register a .me
domain for you but it's much more expensive. I have just allowed mine to
lapse but a lookup still lists me as the owner!
>
>So what does control (or advise, or whatever) on this matter? It has
>always struck me as something that everyone assumes everyone knows, but
>...
It's an organisation called IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority)
>So what does control (or advise, or whatever) on this matter? It has
>always struck me as something that everyone assumes everyone knows, but
>...
who then delegate the next level to individual countries. In the UK it's
Nominet, which is a member of IANA. You can register your domain with
Nominet but they charge individual registrants a very high fee (about
£80 p.a., I think), but if you are willing to act as a registrar the
price comes down to just a few pounds annually. I do know of individuals
who are registrars for Nominet. So all the ISPs act as registrars and
can actually charge customers whatever they please, though market forces
make them moderate their charges!
If anyone fancies being a registrar just go to the Nominet web site and
it will tell you how. They are surprisingly friendly.
>
>(I'm also with [Sir] Tim Berners-Lee: when asked if he'd have done
>anything differently, he said he'd have [a] left out the "www" [which
>has more or less happened by now] and [b] put the com _first_ [which
>hasn't].)
>
>Actually, that makes me think - the "www." _does_ add an extra dot, so
>old Demon website addresses - www.hostname.demon.co.uk - _were_
>four-dot ones. So there's nothing in the system to _prevent_ four dots.
>(more?)
The www. isn't actually technically necessary. Most web sites allow you
>(I'm also with [Sir] Tim Berners-Lee: when asked if he'd have done
>anything differently, he said he'd have [a] left out the "www" [which
>has more or less happened by now] and [b] put the com _first_ [which
>hasn't].)
>
>Actually, that makes me think - the "www." _does_ add an extra dot, so
>old Demon website addresses - www.hostname.demon.co.uk - _were_
>four-dot ones. So there's nothing in the system to _prevent_ four dots.
>(more?)
to miss it out if you want. but sometimes, if you do miss out the .www,
you may be directed to a completely different web site, depending on how
the owner has set it up. I've done that myself for testing purposes.
David
--
David Rance writing from Caversham, Reading, UK
Joe
Jul 30, 2016, 2:54:49 PM7/30/16
to
along with the essential 'http://', and if you enter a single word, it
will normally try '.com' on the end. That's just the browser being
'helpful'.
But the bit after 'http://' is actually a hostname, theoretically a
single computer with the name 'www' in the domain/subdomain following
the dot after 'www'. Not all web servers are named 'www', but the vast
majority are.
DNS, ahhhh...
The name 'www' should appear as an A record in the DNS records for the
website, and should translate to an IP address. Port 80 and/or 443/tcp
of that address will be forwarded to a computer or cluster with a
private name, so there is probably no actual computer named 'www'. If a
DNS server is just given a domain name, then it should *not* return an A
record, and therefore no website should be found.
*Some* DNS servers will return the IP address of the 'www' A record
when given the bare domain name, actually an RFC violation. *Some* DNS
forwarders at ISPs will return an A record if none is found, that of a
list of sites selling similar things to the one you failed to find.
There is a whole industry based on this kind of thing (cough)
Barefruit... some Internet routers will substitute one of their own
pages if a web URL is not found.
--
Joe
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Jul 30, 2016, 4:21:14 PM7/30/16
to
In message <$xTmP4Kq...@david.rance.org.uk>, David Rance
a guess) half the world's web and email traffic? (And another couple
called org and net.) Seems unlikely.
they seem to end up associated with the same entities - mail to
...@domain.com seems to be closely associated with the owner, or at
least operator, of http://[www.]domain.com .
_numbered_ ones: i. e. though for _registration_ purposes they are, for
_technical_ purposes they're not.
>royalmail.com. If an address has a geographical "code" (.fr for France,
>.de for Germany, .be for Belgium, .it for Italy and so on; even US
>states have their own letter code though we don't see much of them over
>here unless you're corresponding with a local user in the States) then
(I didn't know that. I do know the US has .us, but hardly anyone uses
it. [Oh, and I think we have .gb as well as .uk .])
[]
not. So where does the limit (working from the right, i. e. starting
with com or uk or whatever) reach the point where it stops being an
exclusive dotted quad? I suspect there isn't a one-to-one point.
special.)
>domain for you but it's much more expensive. I have just allowed mine
>to lapse but a lookup still lists me as the owner!
>>
>>So what does control (or advise, or whatever) on this matter? It has
>>always struck me as something that everyone assumes everyone knows,
>>but ...
>
>It's an organisation called IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority)
>who then delegate the next level to individual countries. In the UK
>it's Nominet, which is a member of IANA. You can register your domain
>with Nominet but they charge individual registrants a very high fee
>(about £80 p.a., I think), but if you are willing to act as a registrar
>the price comes down to just a few pounds annually. I do know of
>individuals who are registrars for Nominet. So all the ISPs act as
>registrars and can actually charge customers whatever they please,
>though market forces make them moderate their charges!
What obligation does anyone who "acts as a registrar" have to actually
do anything? I presume something, otherwise people would just say
they'll act as a registrar, but only actually register their own domain,
thus getting it for a few rather than 80 pounds.
(Sounds like yet another fake "competition" situation; presumably,
before too long, we'll have comparison sites, and an OFdomain
non-government body set up to oversee the registration situation. Or do
we have these already.)
<david...@SPAMOFF.invalid> writes:
>On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 12:40:49 J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
>>The "latest from" thread has made me wonder: What (RFC? something
>>else?) determines the maximum and minimum number of dots in a domain
>>name?
>
>The following is how I understand the subject. I may be wrong in
>certain respects in which case I'm sure some will come to my aid!
>
>The minimum number of dots must be one. I don't think there is a
>maximum number. The last bit of the address is the top level domain.
>The top level domain then has to route a query to the next level so
>that there must be at least one dot.
But surely, that means there is some entity called com which handles (at
>On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 12:40:49 J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
>>The "latest from" thread has made me wonder: What (RFC? something
>>else?) determines the maximum and minimum number of dots in a domain
>>name?
>
>The following is how I understand the subject. I may be wrong in
>certain respects in which case I'm sure some will come to my aid!
>
>The minimum number of dots must be one. I don't think there is a
>maximum number. The last bit of the address is the top level domain.
>The top level domain then has to route a query to the next level so
>that there must be at least one dot.
a guess) half the world's web and email traffic? (And another couple
called org and net.) Seems unlikely.
>>
>>Is the bit after the @ in an email address closely linked (in practice
>>- I know there are differences) to the bit between http(s):// and the
>>first (subsequent) / in a web URL?
>
>I would have said yes, but Simon doesn't agree. What he says is that it
>depends on how you set your forwarding up on your console at the ISP -
>which is perfectly true!
Seems to be the difference between A and MX values. And _in practice_
>>Is the bit after the @ in an email address closely linked (in practice
>>- I know there are differences) to the bit between http(s):// and the
>>first (subsequent) / in a web URL?
>
>I would have said yes, but Simon doesn't agree. What he says is that it
>depends on how you set your forwarding up on your console at the ISP -
>which is perfectly true!
they seem to end up associated with the same entities - mail to
...@domain.com seems to be closely associated with the owner, or at
least operator, of http://[www.]domain.com .
>>
>>There are plenty of one-dot cases: bt.com, and so on. (Not just .com -
>>.me, and various others, though .com seems to be by far the commonest.
>>And three letters after the dot also seems to be the commonest.)
>
>.com, .org, .net etc., are international top level domains. That is,
>they don't actually signify a country. The letters after the last dot
>signify the top level domain. and the bit to the left of the dot then
>signifies a registered domain for users; thus you have bt.com,
I think the dots in _named_ domains aren't as hierarchical as those in
>>There are plenty of one-dot cases: bt.com, and so on. (Not just .com -
>>.me, and various others, though .com seems to be by far the commonest.
>>And three letters after the dot also seems to be the commonest.)
>
>.com, .org, .net etc., are international top level domains. That is,
>they don't actually signify a country. The letters after the last dot
>signify the top level domain. and the bit to the left of the dot then
>signifies a registered domain for users; thus you have bt.com,
_numbered_ ones: i. e. though for _registration_ purposes they are, for
_technical_ purposes they're not.
>royalmail.com. If an address has a geographical "code" (.fr for France,
>.de for Germany, .be for Belgium, .it for Italy and so on; even US
>states have their own letter code though we don't see much of them over
>here unless you're corresponding with a local user in the States) then
it. [Oh, and I think we have .gb as well as .uk .])
[]
>If I want to have a subdomain off my domain then that will introduce
>another level. For instance my mail server uses mail.rance.org.uk. All
>mail for rance.org.uk comes to my server and it's then up to me what to
>do with any subdomains that I may have configured. And as far as I
>know, it would then be possible to add a sub-sub-domain or even a
>sub-sub-sub-domain. I've never tried it but I suppose it would work.
>(Actually, now I think of it, I *did* try something of the sort a few
>years ago and it worked!)
Did these subs - and sub-subs - have their own dotted quads? I presume
>another level. For instance my mail server uses mail.rance.org.uk. All
>mail for rance.org.uk comes to my server and it's then up to me what to
>do with any subdomains that I may have configured. And as far as I
>know, it would then be possible to add a sub-sub-domain or even a
>sub-sub-sub-domain. I've never tried it but I suppose it would work.
>(Actually, now I think of it, I *did* try something of the sort a few
>years ago and it worked!)
not. So where does the limit (working from the right, i. e. starting
with com or uk or whatever) reach the point where it stops being an
exclusive dotted quad? I suspect there isn't a one-to-one point.
>
>But things are now getting more complicated as more and more top level
>and second level domains are being issued. Just look at an ISP's web
>site and you will see what it now available.
>
>Also .uk is now allowing domains without the .co.uk, so rance.uk is now
>possible. I can't have it for five years because first refusal goes to
>the owner of rance.co.uk
>
>I've also got a domain of rance.me. .Me is a geographical top level
>domain though I can't remember which country it is but they have
>allowed people from other countries to use it, mainly English speaking
>obviously, because it looks more personal. Namesco will register a .me
(I hadn't realised it was really a country one; I thought it was a
>But things are now getting more complicated as more and more top level
>and second level domains are being issued. Just look at an ISP's web
>site and you will see what it now available.
>
>Also .uk is now allowing domains without the .co.uk, so rance.uk is now
>possible. I can't have it for five years because first refusal goes to
>the owner of rance.co.uk
>
>I've also got a domain of rance.me. .Me is a geographical top level
>domain though I can't remember which country it is but they have
>allowed people from other countries to use it, mainly English speaking
>obviously, because it looks more personal. Namesco will register a .me
special.)
>domain for you but it's much more expensive. I have just allowed mine
>to lapse but a lookup still lists me as the owner!
>>
>>So what does control (or advise, or whatever) on this matter? It has
>>always struck me as something that everyone assumes everyone knows,
>>but ...
>
>It's an organisation called IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority)
>who then delegate the next level to individual countries. In the UK
>it's Nominet, which is a member of IANA. You can register your domain
>with Nominet but they charge individual registrants a very high fee
>(about £80 p.a., I think), but if you are willing to act as a registrar
>the price comes down to just a few pounds annually. I do know of
>individuals who are registrars for Nominet. So all the ISPs act as
>registrars and can actually charge customers whatever they please,
>though market forces make them moderate their charges!
do anything? I presume something, otherwise people would just say
they'll act as a registrar, but only actually register their own domain,
thus getting it for a few rather than 80 pounds.
(Sounds like yet another fake "competition" situation; presumably,
before too long, we'll have comparison sites, and an OFdomain
non-government body set up to oversee the registration situation. Or do
we have these already.)
>
>If anyone fancies being a registrar just go to the Nominet web site and
>it will tell you how. They are surprisingly friendly.
[]
>If anyone fancies being a registrar just go to the Nominet web site and
>it will tell you how. They are surprisingly friendly.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Can you open your mind without it falling out?
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
David Rance
Jul 30, 2016, 5:48:58 PM7/30/16
to
On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 21:19:03 J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>In message <$xTmP4Kq...@david.rance.org.uk>, David Rance
><david...@SPAMOFF.invalid> writes:
>>On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 12:40:49 J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>
>>>The "latest from" thread has made me wonder: What (RFC? something
>>>else?) determines the maximum and minimum number of dots in a domain
>>>
>>
>In message <$xTmP4Kq...@david.rance.org.uk>, David Rance
><david...@SPAMOFF.invalid> writes:
>>On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 12:40:49 J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>
>>>The "latest from" thread has made me wonder: What (RFC? something
>>>else?) determines the maximum and minimum number of dots in a domain
>>>
>>
>>The following is how I understand the subject. I may be wrong in
>>certain respects in which case I'm sure some will come to my aid!
>>
>>The minimum number of dots must be one. I don't think there is a
>>maximum number. The last bit of the address is the top level domain.
>>The top level domain then has to route a query to the next level so
>>that there must be at least one dot.
>
>But surely, that means there is some entity called com which handles
>(at a guess) half the world's web and email traffic? (And another
>couple called org and net.) Seems unlikely.
No, it doesn't handle the traffic. It's less like the Royal Mail but
>>certain respects in which case I'm sure some will come to my aid!
>>
>>The minimum number of dots must be one. I don't think there is a
>>maximum number. The last bit of the address is the top level domain.
>>The top level domain then has to route a query to the next level so
>>that there must be at least one dot.
>
>But surely, that means there is some entity called com which handles
>(at a guess) half the world's web and email traffic? (And another
>couple called org and net.) Seems unlikely.
more like a telephone directory. There are systems in various places in
the world that hold authoritative records. These authoritative records
then translate a domain name into an IP address and that is how a server
knows where to send your email or find your web page. When you tell your
browser to find a URL it goes to the DNS server that you have in your
Internet setup. If that DNS server doesn't know how to find it, then it
asks the next DNS server up the scale and so on until it gets an
authoritative answer. I can get hold of software that I could run on my
computer that will act as a DNS server. The most popular one is BIND. In
fact I have downloaded it in the past but never set it up. It looks
attractive to have your own DNS server when the one supplied by your ISP
is sometimes so slow to find an address.
>>>Is the bit after the @ in an email address closely linked (in
>>>practice - I know there are differences) to the bit between
>>>http(s):// and the first (subsequent) / in a web URL?
>>
>>I would have said yes, but Simon doesn't agree. What he says is that
>>it depends on how you set your forwarding up on your console at the
>>ISP - which is perfectly true!
>
>Seems to be the difference between A and MX values. And _in practice_
>they seem to end up associated with the same entities - mail to
>...@domain.com seems to be closely associated with the owner, or at
>least operator, of http://[www.]domain.com .
computer. An MX (Mail eXchange) record is the address to which to send
mail. It needn't be the same as the A record. Mine is mail.rance.org.uk.
>>If I want to have a subdomain off my domain then that will introduce
>>another level. For instance my mail server uses mail.rance.org.uk. All
>>mail for rance.org.uk comes to my server and it's then up to me what
>>to do with any subdomains that I may have configured. And as far as I
>>know, it would then be possible to add a sub-sub-domain or even a
>>sub-sub-sub-domain. I've never tried it but I suppose it would work.
>>(Actually, now I think of it, I *did* try something of the sort a few
>>years ago and it worked!)
>
>Did these subs - and sub-subs - have their own dotted quads? I presume
>not. So where does the limit (working from the right, i. e. starting
>with com or uk or whatever) reach the point where it stops being an
>exclusive dotted quad? I suspect there isn't a one-to-one point.
david.rance.org.uk and I wanted mail for me personally sent to that
subdomain which, for the sake of argument, was in France, then I would
configure that subdomain to have the IP address of my computer in
France. Then that mail would go direct to France and not touch my system
here in the UK.
>>I've also got a domain of rance.me. .Me is a geographical top level
>>domain though I can't remember which country it is but they have
>>allowed people from other countries to use it, mainly English speaking
>>obviously, because it looks more personal. Namesco will register a .me
>
>(I hadn't realised it was really a country one; I thought it was a
>special.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains
and yes, you're right. The UK does have .gb though (it says) it's
deprecated. But that page will give you more (accurate!) information
than I can give you. For instance, I was wrong to say that each state in
the US had its own top level domain. I was told that by an American and
it now proves to be wrong. I always thought that .la was a US state one
but it turns out to be Laos, but marketed to Los Angeles! Seems that
bartering goes on even with top level domains!
>
>>It's an organisation called IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority)
>>who then delegate the next level to individual countries. In the UK
>>it's Nominet, which is a member of IANA. You can register your domain
>>with Nominet but they charge individual registrants a very high fee
>>(about £80 p.a., I think), but if you are willing to act as a
>>registrar the price comes down to just a few pounds annually. I do
>>know of individuals who are registrars for Nominet. So all the ISPs
>>act as registrars and can actually charge customers whatever they
>>please, though market forces make them moderate their charges!
>
>What obligation does anyone who "acts as a registrar" have to actually
>do anything? I presume something, otherwise people would just say
>they'll act as a registrar, but only actually register their own
>domain, thus getting it for a few rather than 80 pounds.
Obviously there must be rules about it. I'm not going to hazard a guess
>>It's an organisation called IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority)
>>who then delegate the next level to individual countries. In the UK
>>it's Nominet, which is a member of IANA. You can register your domain
>>with Nominet but they charge individual registrants a very high fee
>>(about £80 p.a., I think), but if you are willing to act as a
>>registrar the price comes down to just a few pounds annually. I do
>>know of individuals who are registrars for Nominet. So all the ISPs
>>act as registrars and can actually charge customers whatever they
>>please, though market forces make them moderate their charges!
>
>What obligation does anyone who "acts as a registrar" have to actually
>do anything? I presume something, otherwise people would just say
>they'll act as a registrar, but only actually register their own
>domain, thus getting it for a few rather than 80 pounds.
as to how it's administered because I don't know, but you could find out
from the Nominet web site.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Jul 30, 2016, 6:13:38 PM7/30/16
to
In message <0$pEsmOD+...@david.rance.org.uk>, David Rance
it? - are not, I think, hierarchical to that extent - i. e. they don't
look up .com first. I think they just have a table of records for, say,
bt.com, bta.com, btb.com, and so on - in other words, the . is just a
character, as far as the way DNS servers work, it doesn't denote
anything structural. (In terms of how they're _administered_ - actual
_payments_ and _registrations_ - they are.)
>tell your browser to find a URL it goes to the DNS server that you have
>in your Internet setup. If that DNS server doesn't know how to find it,
>then it asks the next DNS server up the scale and so on until it gets
>an authoritative answer. I can get hold of software that I could run on
>my computer that will act as a DNS server. The most popular one is
>BIND. In fact I have downloaded it in the past but never set it up. It
>looks attractive to have your own DNS server when the one supplied by
>your ISP is sometimes so slow to find an address.
(You can of course just use a hosts file - in fact I think that's what
they were originally devised for, not blocking: hence the name!
Presumably running your own DNS software also includes interaction with
other DNS servers to keep the local list up to date, which keeping a
simple hosts file won't.)
[]
income from selling .tv domains!
<david...@SPAMOFF.invalid> writes:
>On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 21:19:03 J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
>>In message <$xTmP4Kq...@david.rance.org.uk>, David Rance
>><david...@SPAMOFF.invalid> writes:
[]
>On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 21:19:03 J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
>>In message <$xTmP4Kq...@david.rance.org.uk>, David Rance
>><david...@SPAMOFF.invalid> writes:
>>>The minimum number of dots must be one. I don't think there is a
>>>maximum number. The last bit of the address is the top level domain.
>>>The top level domain then has to route a query to the next level so
>>>that there must be at least one dot.
>>
>>But surely, that means there is some entity called com which handles
>>(at a guess) half the world's web and email traffic? (And another
>>couple called org and net.) Seems unlikely.
>
>No, it doesn't handle the traffic. It's less like the Royal Mail but
>more like a telephone directory. There are systems in various places in
>the world that hold authoritative records. These authoritative records
>then translate a domain name into an IP address and that is how a
>server knows where to send your email or find your web page. When you
But I think even these - DNS lookup is what we're talking about, isn't
>>>maximum number. The last bit of the address is the top level domain.
>>>The top level domain then has to route a query to the next level so
>>>that there must be at least one dot.
>>
>>But surely, that means there is some entity called com which handles
>>(at a guess) half the world's web and email traffic? (And another
>>couple called org and net.) Seems unlikely.
>
>No, it doesn't handle the traffic. It's less like the Royal Mail but
>more like a telephone directory. There are systems in various places in
>the world that hold authoritative records. These authoritative records
>then translate a domain name into an IP address and that is how a
>server knows where to send your email or find your web page. When you
it? - are not, I think, hierarchical to that extent - i. e. they don't
look up .com first. I think they just have a table of records for, say,
bt.com, bta.com, btb.com, and so on - in other words, the . is just a
character, as far as the way DNS servers work, it doesn't denote
anything structural. (In terms of how they're _administered_ - actual
_payments_ and _registrations_ - they are.)
>tell your browser to find a URL it goes to the DNS server that you have
>in your Internet setup. If that DNS server doesn't know how to find it,
>then it asks the next DNS server up the scale and so on until it gets
>an authoritative answer. I can get hold of software that I could run on
>my computer that will act as a DNS server. The most popular one is
>BIND. In fact I have downloaded it in the past but never set it up. It
>looks attractive to have your own DNS server when the one supplied by
>your ISP is sometimes so slow to find an address.
they were originally devised for, not blocking: hence the name!
Presumably running your own DNS software also includes interaction with
other DNS servers to keep the local list up to date, which keeping a
simple hosts file won't.)
[]
>>(I hadn't realised it was really a country one; I thought it was a
>>special.)
>
>I've just looked it up. It's Montenegro. Here is the list:
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains
>
>and yes, you're right. The UK does have .gb though (it says) it's
>deprecated. But that page will give you more (accurate!) information
>than I can give you. For instance, I was wrong to say that each state
>in the US had its own top level domain. I was told that by an American
>and it now proves to be wrong. I always thought that .la was a US state
>one but it turns out to be Laos, but marketed to Los Angeles! Seems
>that bartering goes on even with top level domains!
Oh yes; I think Tuvalu makes a significant proportion of its national
>>special.)
>
>I've just looked it up. It's Montenegro. Here is the list:
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains
>
>and yes, you're right. The UK does have .gb though (it says) it's
>deprecated. But that page will give you more (accurate!) information
>than I can give you. For instance, I was wrong to say that each state
>in the US had its own top level domain. I was told that by an American
>and it now proves to be wrong. I always thought that .la was a US state
>one but it turns out to be Laos, but marketed to Los Angeles! Seems
>that bartering goes on even with top level domains!
income from selling .tv domains!
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
You'll need to have this fish in your ear. (First series, fit the first.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Jim Crowther
Jul 30, 2016, 7:11:04 PM7/30/16
to
In demon.service, on Sat, 30 Jul 2016 23:11:43, J. P. Gilliver (John)
wrote:
>But I think even these - DNS lookup is what we're talking about, isn't
>it? - are not, I think, hierarchical to that extent - i. e. they don't
>look up .com first.
Actually, that is exactly how it works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_name_server
However, servers further away from the TLD root servers may well hold a
cache of child addresses, usually for as long as their TTL (Time To
Live). If they've not had a query for that combination after the TTL,
they go up the chain to find out what the current routing is.
--
Jim Crowther
wrote:
>But I think even these - DNS lookup is what we're talking about, isn't
>it? - are not, I think, hierarchical to that extent - i. e. they don't
>look up .com first.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_name_server
However, servers further away from the TLD root servers may well hold a
cache of child addresses, usually for as long as their TTL (Time To
Live). If they've not had a query for that combination after the TTL,
they go up the chain to find out what the current routing is.
--
Jim Crowther
Simon Clubley
Jul 30, 2016, 7:44:59 PM7/30/16
to
On 2016-07-30, J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <$xTmP4Kq...@david.rance.org.uk>, David Rance
><david...@SPAMOFF.invalid> writes:
>>On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 12:40:49 J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>>
>>>Is the bit after the @ in an email address closely linked (in practice
>>>- I know there are differences) to the bit between http(s):// and the
>>>first (subsequent) / in a web URL?
>>
>>I would have said yes, but Simon doesn't agree. What he says is that it
>>depends on how you set your forwarding up on your console at the ISP -
>>which is perfectly true!
>
> Seems to be the difference between A and MX values. And _in practice_
> they seem to end up associated with the same entities - mail to
> ...@domain.com seems to be closely associated with the owner, or at
> least operator, of http://[www.]domain.com .
But what about when you start getting into subdomains or large networks
><david...@SPAMOFF.invalid> writes:
>>On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 12:40:49 J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>>
>>>Is the bit after the @ in an email address closely linked (in practice
>>>- I know there are differences) to the bit between http(s):// and the
>>>first (subsequent) / in a web URL?
>>
>>I would have said yes, but Simon doesn't agree. What he says is that it
>>depends on how you set your forwarding up on your console at the ISP -
>>which is perfectly true!
>
> Seems to be the difference between A and MX values. And _in practice_
> they seem to end up associated with the same entities - mail to
> ...@domain.com seems to be closely associated with the owner, or at
> least operator, of http://[www.]domain.com .
in general ?
What I'm trying to get across is that the A records and the MX records
are in completely different namespaces so they only appear to be closely
bound in simple cases or only for the top level domain components in
more complicated network setups.
Once you start getting into subdomains, you can have web servers or
other A record services at those subdomains which don't have
corresponding MX records or vice versa. When you look at the full range
of network configuration options, I would still say that the email
domains and the webserver (or other A record service) domains are not
closely linked in the general case.
There's also the possibility that while the A records and MX records
for a domain are owned by the same entity, the actual systems pointed
to by the A and MX records could be managed by different entities on
behalf of the owner (and hence so could management of those different
namespaces).
John Hall
Jul 31, 2016, 5:35:59 AM7/31/16
to
In message <0$pEsmOD+...@david.rance.org.uk>, David Rance
<david...@SPAMOFF.invalid> writes
any proper international regulation. ISTR that British government
domains used to end hmg.gb. I wonder if any .gb domains still are in
active use.
--
John Hall
"Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin"
attributed to Sir Josiah Stamp,
a former director of the Bank of England
<david...@SPAMOFF.invalid> writes
>Here is the list:
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains
>
>and yes, you're right. The UK does have .gb though (it says) it's
>deprecated.
I think .gb was set up in the very early days before these things had
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains
>
>and yes, you're right. The UK does have .gb though (it says) it's
>deprecated.
any proper international regulation. ISTR that British government
domains used to end hmg.gb. I wonder if any .gb domains still are in
active use.
--
John Hall
"Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin"
attributed to Sir Josiah Stamp,
a former director of the Bank of England
Graeme Wall
Jul 31, 2016, 5:56:18 AM7/31/16
to
On 31/07/2016 10:31, John Hall wrote:
> In message <0$pEsmOD+...@david.rance.org.uk>, David Rance
> <david...@SPAMOFF.invalid> writes
>> Here is the list:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains
>>
>> and yes, you're right. The UK does have .gb though (it says) it's
>> deprecated.
>
> I think .gb was set up in the very early days before these things had
> any proper international regulation. ISTR that British government
> domains used to end hmg.gb. I wonder if any .gb domains still are in
> active use.
Going to need .le before long…
> In message <0$pEsmOD+...@david.rance.org.uk>, David Rance
> <david...@SPAMOFF.invalid> writes
>> Here is the list:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains
>>
>> and yes, you're right. The UK does have .gb though (it says) it's
>> deprecated.
>
> I think .gb was set up in the very early days before these things had
> any proper international regulation. ISTR that British government
> domains used to end hmg.gb. I wonder if any .gb domains still are in
> active use.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
John Hall
Jul 31, 2016, 6:26:01 AM7/31/16
to
In message <nnki01$lcj$1...@dont-email.me>, Graeme Wall
<ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> writes
Little England? I've just checked, and it seems to be free.
<ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> writes
Andy
Jul 31, 2016, 7:06:06 AM7/31/16
to
In message <WfDZbvABWcnXFwdc@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
<john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote
works but thepiratebay.gb/ does not.
Aside: *.us returns about 658,000,000 sites!
--
Andy Taylor [Editor, Austrian Philatelic Society].
Visit www dot austrianphilately dot com>
<john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote
>In message <0$pEsmOD+...@david.rance.org.uk>, David Rance
><david...@SPAMOFF.invalid> writes
>>Here is the list:
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains
>>
>>and yes, you're right. The UK does have .gb though (it says) it's
>>deprecated.
>
>I think .gb was set up in the very early days before these things had
>any proper international regulation. ISTR that British government
>domains used to end hmg.gb. I wonder if any .gb domains still are in
>active use.
Google for "site:*.gb" - there are two listed, of which www.ebay.gb/
><david...@SPAMOFF.invalid> writes
>>Here is the list:
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains
>>
>>and yes, you're right. The UK does have .gb though (it says) it's
>>deprecated.
>
>I think .gb was set up in the very early days before these things had
>any proper international regulation. ISTR that British government
>domains used to end hmg.gb. I wonder if any .gb domains still are in
>active use.
works but thepiratebay.gb/ does not.
Aside: *.us returns about 658,000,000 sites!
--
Andy Taylor [Editor, Austrian Philatelic Society].
Visit www dot austrianphilately dot com>
Chris S
Jul 31, 2016, 12:42:50 PM7/31/16
to
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 10:31:45 +0100, John Hall
<john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <0$pEsmOD+...@david.rance.org.uk>, David Rance
><david...@SPAMOFF.invalid> writes
>>Here is the list:
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains
>>
>>and yes, you're right. The UK does have .gb though (it says) it's
>>deprecated.
>
>I think .gb was set up in the very early days before these things had
>any proper international regulation. ISTR that British government
>domains used to end hmg.gb. I wonder if any .gb domains still are in
>active use.
The ISO 3166-1 code for the United Kingdom is GB. However, the JANET
<john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <0$pEsmOD+...@david.rance.org.uk>, David Rance
><david...@SPAMOFF.invalid> writes
>>Here is the list:
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains
>>
>>and yes, you're right. The UK does have .gb though (it says) it's
>>deprecated.
>
>I think .gb was set up in the very early days before these things had
>any proper international regulation. ISTR that British government
>domains used to end hmg.gb. I wonder if any .gb domains still are in
>active use.
network had already selected uk as a top-level identifier for its
pre-existing Name Registration Scheme, and this was incorporated into
the DNS root. gb was assigned with the intention of a transition, but
this never occurred and the use of uk is now entrenched.
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country_code_top-level_domain
Chris S
Dr J R Stockton
Jul 31, 2016, 6:43:35 PM7/31/16
to
In demon.service message <zKo8A1qB...@soft255.demon.co.uk>, Sat, 30
Jul 2016 12:40:49, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk>
posted:
>
>Actually, that makes me think - the "www." _does_ add an extra dot, so
>old Demon website addresses - www.hostname.demon.co.uk - _were_ four-
>dot ones. So there's nothing in the system to _prevent_ four dots.
>(more?)
(1) http://www.batch.hpg.ig.com.br/index.htm has 5 dots, and was a Batch
FAQ; it now shows a news site, http://www.ig.com.br/ .
(2) The server at www.aphayes.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk (5 dots) is taking
too long to respond; it used to have an interesting page. A search for
"Sun and Moon Calculations" "Peter Hayes" shows that aphayes moved.
I know of no six-dot cases.
--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. 拯merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Merlyn Web Site < > - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Jul 2016 12:40:49, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk>
posted:
>
>Actually, that makes me think - the "www." _does_ add an extra dot, so
>old Demon website addresses - www.hostname.demon.co.uk - _were_ four-
>dot ones. So there's nothing in the system to _prevent_ four dots.
>(more?)
FAQ; it now shows a news site, http://www.ig.com.br/ .
(2) The server at www.aphayes.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk (5 dots) is taking
too long to respond; it used to have an interesting page. A search for
"Sun and Moon Calculations" "Peter Hayes" shows that aphayes moved.
I know of no six-dot cases.
--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. 拯merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Merlyn Web Site < > - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Gustas Marcinkevicius
May 25, 2023, 8:14:42 AM5/25/23
to
On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 1:43:35 AM UTC+3, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
> In demon.service message <zKo8A1qB...@soft255.demon.co.uk>, Sat, 30
> Jul 2016 12:40:49, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk>
> posted:
> >
> >Actually, that makes me think - the "www." _does_ add an extra dot, so
> >old Demon website addresses - www.hostname.demon.co.uk - _were_ four-
> >dot ones. So there's nothing in the system to _prevent_ four dots.
> >(more?)
> (1) http://www.batch.hpg.ig.com.br/index.htm has 5 dots, and was a Batch
> FAQ; it now shows a news site, http://www.ig.com.br/ .
Found another 5 dot domain: https://applicant.tr.super.ato.gov.au
> In demon.service message <zKo8A1qB...@soft255.demon.co.uk>, Sat, 30
> Jul 2016 12:40:49, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk>
> posted:
> >
> >Actually, that makes me think - the "www." _does_ add an extra dot, so
> >old Demon website addresses - www.hostname.demon.co.uk - _were_ four-
> >dot ones. So there's nothing in the system to _prevent_ four dots.
> >(more?)
> (1) http://www.batch.hpg.ig.com.br/index.htm has 5 dots, and was a Batch
> FAQ; it now shows a news site, http://www.ig.com.br/ .
0 new messages