nanog mailing list archives
Re: Were A record domain names ever limited to 23 characters?
From: Joe Hamelin <joe () nethead com>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 19:41:34 -0700
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com> wrote: ----- Original Message -----
"3com.com"
I recall that 3M was originally mmm.com because they wouldn't allow a number to start a domain. /me runs whois mmm.com Yep, Created on..............: 1988-10-31. but wait, 3m.com Created on..............: 1988-05-27. So was the digit as first octet a limitation with some OS or software (BIND, sendmail, gopher?) or do I have brain-fade? -- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
Current thread:
- Re: Were A record domain names ever limited to 23 characters? Lamar Owen (Oct 07)
- Re: Were A record domain names ever limited to 23 characters? steve pirk [egrep] (Oct 07)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Were A record domain names ever limited to 23 characters? Jimmy Hess (Oct 07)
- Re: Were A record domain names ever limited to 23 characters? steve pirk [egrep] (Oct 07)
- Re: Were A record domain names ever limited to 23 characters? Owen DeLong (Oct 07)
- Re: Were A record domain names ever limited to 23 characters? bmanning (Oct 10)
- Message not available
- Re: Were A record domain names ever limited to 23 characters? steve pirk [egrep] (Oct 11)
- Re: Were A record domain names ever limited to 23 characters? steve pirk [egrep] (Oct 07)
- Re: Were A record domain names ever limited to 23 characters? Jay Ashworth (Oct 07)
- Re: Were A record domain names ever limited to 23 characters? Joe Hamelin (Oct 07)
- Re: Were A record domain names ever limited to 23 characters? Jay Ashworth (Oct 07)
- Re: Were A record domain names ever limited to 23 characters? Owen DeLong (Oct 07)
- Re: Were A record domain names ever limited to 23 characters? Joe Hamelin (Oct 07)
- Re: Were A record domain names ever limited to 23 characters? JC Dill (Oct 10)