Re: Services and top-level DNS names (was: Re: Update of RFC 2606

John Levine <> Mon, 07 July 2008 03:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 283B53A6A01; Sun, 6 Jul 2008 20:21:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 459963A6A12 for <>; Sun, 6 Jul 2008 20:21:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.724
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.724 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.425, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D0WDQO0AD0i7 for <>; Sun, 6 Jul 2008 20:21:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AD9F3A6A01 for <>; Sun, 6 Jul 2008 20:21:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 18387 invoked from network); 7 Jul 2008 03:21:28 -0000
Received: from ( by with QMQP; 7 Jul 2008 03:21:28 -0000
Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@ by localhost with SMTP; 7 Jul 2008 03:21:28 -0000
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 23:21:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Levine <>
To: Mark Andrews <>
Subject: Re: Services and top-level DNS names (was: Re: Update of RFC 2606
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (BSF 962 2008-03-14)
Cleverness: None detected
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"

> 	Again you are asserting that no one has ever been effected.

No, I'm saying that you can only cry wolf so many times.

The disaster you are predicting has in fact been in progress for over
a decade, and the mountains of casualties are nowhere to be found.

Someone claiming to be you said:

>        I suspect that other sites that used the names just put up
>        with the pain of renamimg hosts along with the resultant
>        risk of email being misdirected.

There's at least one well known mail host whose name has matched a TLD 
with an MX for ten years now.  Did they rename?  Are they losing floods of 
mail to the Caribbean?  Uh, well, if they are, they're not telling anyone. 
How do we explain this conspiracy of silence?

Finally, as I presume you're aware, some browsers including Firefox retry 
with an appended .com if the address you type doesn't resolve, so if you 
type something like www.pets into your browser, it will find 
This means that if ICANN creates new TLDs that match any of the 70 million 
existing .com domains, users of popular current software will suddenly 
find that they're not seeing the sites they used to see.  (We're not 
talking about records at the apex of a TLD here, it's vs. 
www.blah.)  Should all of the existing .com domain names be reserved as 
TLDs?  If not, why not?  It's the same problem, only it affects a lot more 


PS to everyone else: I'll stop beating this dead horse now.
Ietf mailing list