On Mon, 2014-09-08 at 22:37 -0400, listsb-spamassas...@bitrate.net wrote:
> On Sep 8, 2014, at 21.45, Karsten Bräckelmann <guent...@rudersport.de> wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> pardon my possible technical ignorance here - could this potentially be
> a network test, rather than a list propagated by sa-update? e.g.
> query dns for existence of delegation?
This cannot be queried for. Because the Valid TLDs (code|option) is what
is used to identify URIs in the first place, even from plain text links
any normal MUA would linki-fy.
Apart from that, the list of generic TLDs is not going to change *that*
frequent, that a few days between IANA acceptance, SA incorporating it,
and first occurrence in mail as sa-update takes would make a difference.
And as I hinted at before, (new) generic TLD owners have a vital
interest in their TLD not be mostly abused. If it is, it's not worth the
investment.
--
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; }}}
