A records point to a domain

Barry Margolin barmar at genuity.net
Mon May 22 19:29:39 UTC 2000


In article <MPG.13930decc7e87d189896ad at news2lo.highwayone.net>,
Stewart Tolhurst  <stewart.tolhurst at vodafone.net> wrote:
>Carry this on to its logical conclusion and you would be saying that 
>"com" is a valid hostname - which wouldn't really be that much use to 
>anyone.

Yes, it's technically valid.  In fact, I believe when we had a discussion
about this a few months ago, we found that there are some country TLDs that
have A and/or MX records attached to them.

>
>What I feel that it breaks is the heirarchical way that DNS is organised.  
>The structure of hostname.subdomain.subdomain.domain.tld (to take an 
>extreme example) makes sense whereas (to me anyway) domain.tld being the 
>name of a host makes no sense at all.

But having it be the name of an MX record doesn't seem to bother you.
What's the difference between using domain.tld as the hostname in an email
address and using it as the hostname in a URL?  I.e. we don't make people
use addresses like user at mail.company.com, so why should we make them use
URLs like http://www.company.com when http://company.com would be just as
good?

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar at genuity.net
Genuity, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.



More information about the bind-users mailing list