Some discussion of the underlying issue.
On Tue, 2014-09-09 at 02:59 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> At the time of the 3.3.2 release, the .club TLD simply didn't exist. It
> has been accepted by IANA just recently. Of course I was conveniently
> using a trunk checkout for testing and kind of shrugged off that TLD in
> question.
>
> FWIW, this is not actually a 3.3.x issue. It's the same with 3.4.0. Yes,
> that is a *recent* TLD addition... *sigh*
Unlike the util_rb_[23]tld options, the set of valid TLDs is actually
hard-coded. It would not be a problem to make that an option, too.
Which, on the plus side, would make it possible to propagate new TLDs
via sa-update. Not only 3.3.x would benefit from that, but also 3.4.0
instances. Plus, it would be generally faster anyway.
There is one down side: A new dependency on Regexp::List [1]. The RE
pre-compile one-time upstart penalty should be negligible.
The question is: Is it worth it? WILL it be worth it?
This incidence is part of the initial round of IANA accepting generic
TLDs. There's hundreds in this wave, and some are abused early. This is
moonshine registration, nothing like new TLDs being accepted in the
coming years.
Or is it? Will new generic TLDs in the future be abused like that, too?
How frequently will that happen? Is it worth being able to react to it
quickly? How long will URIBLs take to list them? How long will it take
for the average MUA to even linki-fy them?
Opinions? Discussion in here, or should I move this to dev?
I guess I'd be happy to introduce to you... util_rb_tld.
[1] Well, or a really, really f*cking ugly option that takes a
pre-optimzed qr// blob containing the VALID_TLDS_RE.
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
