From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/9752
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Lars Balker Rasmussen <gnort@daimi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general
Subject: Re: Good Netkeeping Seal of Approval (GNKSA)
Date: 01 Feb 1997 00:24:07 +0100
Sender: gnort@daimi.aau.dk
Message-ID: <0fk9otfmy0.fsf@fraxinus.daimi.aau.dk>
References: <90lu3nzjl8u.fsf@opus.online.no> <0f915bxkwz.fsf@fraxinus.daimi.aau.dk> <yvtvi8d7ddt.fsf@corona.pixar.com> <0fzpxpfrsi.fsf@fraxinus.daimi.aau.dk> <vpdlo99ihgm.fsf@naiad.fac.cs.cmu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035149725 20271 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 21:35:25 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 21:35:25 +0000 (UTC)
Return-Path: <ding-request@ifi.uio.no>
Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (0@ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2])
	by deanna.miranova.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA05721
	for <steve@miranova.com>; Fri, 31 Jan 1997 15:53:49 -0800
Original-Received: from fraxinus.daimi.aau.dk (fraxinus.daimi.aau.dk [130.225.16.39]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) 
	id <AAA22956@ifi.uio.no> for <ding@ifi.uio.no> ; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 00:24:07 +0100
Original-Received: (from gnort@localhost) by fraxinus.daimi.aau.dk (8.8.2/8.8.2) id AAA08073; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 00:24:07 +0100 (MET)
Original-To: ding@ifi.uio.no
In-Reply-To: visigoth@naiad.fac.cs.cmu.edu's message of 31 Jan 1997 17:54:17 -0500
Original-Lines: 18
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.8/Emacs 19.33
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:9752
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:9752

visigoth@naiad.fac.cs.cmu.edu writes:
> Uh.  The question is not should they be allowed, it's "is there any
> reason not to allow them"?  If I mail to "foo@zub.fi", and there's an
> fi subdomain here at CMU, but I really mean zub.fi (in finland), I
> should be able to type "foo@zub.fi." to get it.

One could argue that if your site has subdomains with the same name as
your top-domain, you're getting what you deserve.  One could also argue
that you're right.  There IS no reason to not allowing names like
foo.com., ASSUMING your nameserver/sendmail-equivlant knows how to
handle it.  But I guess this is along the same lines as expecting
internet sites to have a postmaster-mailbox...

G'night,
-- 
Lars Balker Rasmussen             <URL:http://www.daimi.aau.dk/~gnort/>

	      I am *not* selling crack from my cubicle!!!