Tim
If .com was *only* ever used for commerical use, and using .com was enforced for commercial use, and we had something else for personal use, we could blanket delete all .com originating mail, and still receive all our non .com mail from our personal friends. ;-)
Several years ago, I concocted the notion of '.per' addresses (for 'person'). I searched for someone to tell, but didn't know enough then to know where to look.
I figured that we needed something for personal domains (e.g. websites, where a person buys a name).
Michael Klinosky wrote:
I figured that we needed something for personal domains (e.g. websites,=
where a person buys a name).
Isn't that what the .name TLD is for? ;)
(So says the guy with a .com primary domain name...) --=20 Peter Gordon (codergeek42) GnuPG Public Key ID: 0xFFC19479 / Fingerprint: DD68 A414 56BD 6368 D957 9666 4268 CB7A FFC1 9479 My Blog: http://thecodergeek.com/blog/
At 2:52 PM -0700 5/29/07, Peter Gordon wrote:
Michael Klinosky wrote:
I figured that we needed something for personal domains (e.g. websites,=
where a person buys a name).
Isn't that what the .name TLD is for? ;)
Does .name really work yet? When I registered my domain I found that the first.last.name form was expected, and it wouldn't accept the "new" sane first-last.name form, so I gave up and went with .com. Sure, first.last.name seemed like a nice idea, for someone knowing nothing about the Domain Name System.
(So says the guy with a .com primary domain name...)
Me too.
Folks look at this at all angles it's a losing game. 1. .any person out there could get your E-mail address. 2. Would the fcc be willing to let the wireless Folks do this? 3. Would AT&T or who ever you have Keep the feds from eaves dropping? 4.Or could there be a wall of some kind put up?
On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 17:32 -0400, Michael Klinosky wrote:
Tim
If .com was *only* ever used for commerical use, and using .com was enforced for commercial use, and we had something else for personal use, we could blanket delete all .com originating mail, and still receive all our non .com mail from our personal friends. ;-)
Several years ago, I concocted the notion of '.per' addresses (for 'person'). I searched for someone to tell, but didn't know enough then to know where to look.
I figured that we needed something for personal domains (e.g. websites, where a person buys a name).
Tim:
If .com was *only* ever used for commerical use, and using .com was enforced for commercial use, and we had something else for personal use, we could blanket delete all .com originating mail, and still receive all our non .com mail from our personal friends. ;-)
Michael Klinosky:
Several years ago, I concocted the notion of '.per' addresses (for 'person'). I searched for someone to tell, but didn't know enough then to know where to look.
I figured that we needed something for personal domains (e.g. websites, where a person buys a name).
Well, we have "name," as pointed out, and it had problems, as pointed out. We have an "id.au" one for similar reasons, and it has similar problems. e.g. what do all the John Smiths do?
We have "info" which would have been a good alternative to "com" for a great many things, but it's stupidly seen as an infested domain ("com" is *really* the most abused), and not appropriate for all. Then there's "biz," which is essentially a needless doubling up on "com."
Then we have country codes, which I think are badly implemented by various services. e.g. Do a search for Australian webpages, and many things without a .au TLD are ignored, even though they're Australian, and shouldn't really have to have a .au TLD, too. An Australian webpage, for example, might me one by an Aussie, about something Australian, hosted on Australian soil, or whatnot. The TLD is only a small part of a determining factor.
There isn't really a generic "internet" one, that fills in the missing purposes. e.g. If only you could register "nicename.inet" and not have to care whether it was commercial, personal, had content logically related to the domain name, was somehow local or generally world-wide.
On Wed, 30 May 2007 14:56:40 +0930 Tim ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au wrote:
<snip>
There isn't really a generic "internet" one, that fills in the missing purposes. e.g. If only you could register "nicename.inet" and not have to care whether it was commercial, personal, had content logically related to the domain name, was somehow local or generally world-wide.
Why are domains needed at all? Why can't there just be a requirement for a unique name?
stan wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2007 14:56:40 +0930 Tim ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au wrote:
<snip> > There isn't really a generic "internet" one, that fills in the missing > purposes. e.g. If only you could register "nicename.inet" and not > have to care whether it was commercial, personal, had content > logically related to the domain name, was somehow local or generally > world-wide. >
Why are domains needed at all? Why can't there just be a requirement for a unique name?
That is the requirement. The domain system fulfills it by establishing a hierarchical system where authority to assign names can be granted and subdivided at the '.' levels. There is no requirement to have your own top/second level domain, you just have to have someone that has some existing level grant you naming authority below (to the left of) any existing subdomain. This can be done either by that person maintaining the names you assign in their DNS zone file or by delegating DNS lookups to nameservers you provide for that subdomain. I don't know if there is any limit to the depth you can go, but the top level stuff is more cosmetic than a practical requirement.
Les Mikesell wrote:
stan wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2007 14:56:40 +0930 Tim ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au wrote:
<snip>
There isn't really a generic "internet" one, that fills in the missing purposes. e.g. If only you could register "nicename.inet" and not have to care whether it was commercial, personal, had content logically related to the domain name, was somehow local or generally world-wide.
Why are domains needed at all? Why can't there just be a requirement for a unique name?
That is the requirement. The domain system fulfills it by establishing a hierarchical system where authority to assign names can be granted and subdivided at the '.' levels. There is no requirement to have your own top/second level domain, you just have to have someone that has some existing level grant you naming authority below (to the left of) any existing subdomain. This can be done either by that person maintaining the names you assign in their DNS zone file or by delegating DNS lookups to nameservers you provide for that subdomain. I don't know if there is any limit to the depth you can go, but the top level stuff is more cosmetic than a practical requirement.
You can have some real fun and run your own root nameserver and make whatever tld's you want. My experience is that the "official" tld servers readily accept and propagate poison. This is really more appropriate for private networks though, where you might have tld's suchas .sales, .marketing, .engrg, .staff, .students, etc.
(Gawd, that felt evil ;)
On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 17:32:45 -0400, Michael Klinosky mpk2@enter.net wrote:
Tim
If .com was *only* ever used for commerical use, and using .com was enforced for commercial use, and we had something else for personal use, we could blanket delete all .com originating mail, and still receive all our non .com mail from our personal friends. ;-)
This really wouldn't work well. You can do the equivalent using a white list in any case.
Several years ago, I concocted the notion of '.per' addresses (for 'person'). I searched for someone to tell, but didn't know enough then to know where to look.
You probably need to bribe ICANN staff to make this happen. Based on the last time they were publically accepting bribes to introduce new TLDs, $50K just got them to accept a copy of your proposal for review. Expect to pay a lot more under the table to actually get approved.
Tim:
If .com was *only* ever used for commerical use, and using .com was enforced for commercial use, and we had something else for personal use, we could blanket delete all .com originating mail, and still receive all our non .com mail from our personal friends. ;-)
Bruno Wolff III:
This really wouldn't work well. You can do the equivalent using a white list in any case.
You might have noticed my little disclaimer, originally. ;-)
Blacklisting (which is what my suggestion was) has its problems. Though a clear use of com for commercial, would have made it very easy to avoid all commercial mail, if you wanted to, and if it was possible to force commercial users to use it. The last "if" really being the nail in the coffin for it.
Whitelisting has even worse problems. It's very much a chicken and egg situation when you want to get a message from someone for the first time. A lot of people don't actually know their e-mail addresses, and can't tell you it, ahead of time (or do so incorrectly). Various things that you sign up for will send you a confirmation message, but don't tell you what address they'll be sending from, and so on.
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 16:47:46 +0930, Tim ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au wrote:
Blacklisting (which is what my suggestion was) has its problems. Though a clear use of com for commercial, would have made it very easy to avoid all commercial mail, if you wanted to, and if it was possible to force commercial users to use it. The last "if" really being the nail in the coffin for it.
It wouldn't work as well as you might think. Most of teh junk comes from spammers who would have no problem sending email that looked like it came from individuals if they thought it would help people see their email.
Tim:
Blacklisting (which is what my suggestion was) has its problems. Though a clear use of com for commercial, would have made it very easy to avoid all commercial mail, if you wanted to, and if it was possible to force commercial users to use it. The last "if" really being the nail in the coffin for it.
Bruno Wolff III:
It wouldn't work as well as you might think. Most of teh junk comes from spammers who would have no problem sending email that looked like it came from individuals if they thought it would help people see their email.
I know, I said that already. Read that paragraph, again.
-
Art Giles -
Bruno Wolff III -
Les Mikesell -
Michael Klinosky -
Mike Wright -
Peter Gordon -
stan -
Tim -
Tony Nelson