-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Duncan Hill wrote: > On Monday 07 August 2006 00:02, QQQQ wrote: >> | 2250 0733.com > >> Here are my numbers from last week: >> >> 5006 0451.com 3845 53.com > > Not seeing anywhere near as high, but this is only on my personal > server: 44 0733.com 34 0451.com 11 0668.com 4 023.com > 2 08.com 2 020.com 1 212.com 1 07770500.com 1 > 01191.com 1 004.com > > However, the majority are already being rejected with my standard > rules in Postfix (like don't accept mail from certain netblocks). > I would have sworn there used to be a domain registration rule that > said pure-numeric domains were illegal, but I'm not sure.
The RFC's actually state that a domain MUST start with a letter, and be any letter or digit or hyphen after. So according to the RFC's purely numberic domains are illegal. (e.g. From RFC 1035) <domain> ::= <subdomain> | " " <subdomain> ::= <label> | <subdomain> "." <label> <label> ::= <letter> [ [ <ldh-str> ] <let-dig> ] <ldh-str> ::= <let-dig-hyp> | <let-dig-hyp> <ldh-str> <let-dig-hyp> ::= <let-dig> | "-" <let-dig> ::= <letter> | <digit> <letter> ::= any one of the 52 alphabetic characters A through Z in upper case and a through z in lower case <digit> ::= any one of the ten digits 0 through 9 Seems clear to me... And since RFC1035 is still current, I'm not sure why purely numeric domains are considered acceptable. (Apart from I can't think of a really good reason apart from pedanticness to stop them). Hamish, -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFE10oj/3QXwQQkZYwRAiq3AJ9aPoHZ7M6Bdmhf2E093xX8iOlCMACePBe8 pgAwacs61+KKqglxUcMr9vs= =kn09 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
