Re: regarding illegally formed address and commands

Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Tue, 24 December 1996 17:45 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa25191; 24 Dec 96 12:45 EST
Received: from list.cren.net by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12756; 24 Dec 96 12:45 EST
Received: from localhost (localhost.0.0.127.in-addr.arpa [127.0.0.1]) by list.cren.net (8.7.6/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA20497; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 12:16:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from black-ice.cc.vt.edu (root@black-ice.cc.vt.edu [128.173.14.71]) by list.cren.net (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA20485 for <ietf-smtp@list.cren.net>; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 12:15:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from black-ice.cc.vt.edu (valdis@LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by black-ice.cc.vt.edu (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id MAA52900; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 12:15:52 -0500
Message-Id: <199612241715.MAA52900@black-ice.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 12:15:49 -0500
Sender: owner-ietf-smtp@list.cren.net
Precedence: bulk
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
To: Jack De Winter <jack@wildbear.on.ca>
Cc: ietf-smtp@list.cren.net
Subject: Re: regarding illegally formed address and commands
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 24 Dec 1996 01:41:37 EST." <3.0.32.19961224014136.00ef9b6c@lacroix>
References: <3.0.32.19961224014136.00ef9b6c@lacroix>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1010778248P"; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0alpha 12/3/96
X-Url: http://black-ice.cc.vt.edu/~valdis/
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.1 beta -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN

On Tue, 24 Dec 1996 01:41:37 EST, "Jack De Winter" said:
> Um... actually, according to the RFC821 grammar (which we are all
> bound to until 821bis is finished), the domain part of the address
> itself is a series of parts, each separated by dots, with an
> alphabetic at the front; alphas, numerics, and a dash in the middle;
> and an alpha or numeric character at the end.
> 
> i.e. a12.com is legal, as is a1-2.com, but 1.com, a1-.com, and -1.com
> are illegal... according to 821 at least.
Jack:

RFC821 was amended by RFC1123. Section 2.1  states:

   2.1  Host Names and Numbers

      The syntax of a legal Internet host name was specified in RFC-952
      [DNS:4].  One aspect of host name syntax is hereby changed: the
      restriction on the first character is relaxed to allow either a
      letter or a digit.  Host software MUST support this more liberal
      syntax.

So 1.com is legal (as is 3com.com), but I believe that a1-.com and -1.com
are still illegal.  You may wish to read all the *rest* of RFC1122 and 1123,
and see what *other* RFC's they modified and clarified, and look to see if
they require any code changes in SLMail...

-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Computer Systems Engineer
				Virginia Tech