16 Apr 96 11:38, HECTOR SANTOS wrote to ANDREW CLARKE:

 AC>> Hey, that can't be right - I wrote it to HECTOR SANTOS, not
 AC>> Hector Santos.

 > argggggh, another wannabe!

 >>> Please. You don't know what you're talking about.

 AC>> Fraid so HECTOR.

 > How so? Is there a specification which defined the name?  If not,
 > stop the bull, ok?

The FTSC have defined the correct domain name.

   ----- Forwarded message begins -----

Area : net_dev
Date : 30 Apr 94  20:22
From : david nugent, 3:632/348{at}fidonet
To   : rowan crowe
Subj : Correct fidonet domain name (a tired old thread I know)

 >     I'm sure this has been brought up before, but I'm not
 > sure that a NET_DEV FAQ exists.  Just WHAT is the correct
 > domain name for fidonet?

"fidonet" (sans quotes).


 > My understanding is that fidonet.org
 > is *only* used when referring to fidonet from the *internet*
 > side. I want to find out once and for all what it's SUPPOSED
 > to be, so I can be sure that I am not passing on
 > misinformation to fellow sysops.

Yes.

As I understand it, "fidonet.org" was originally suggested by Tim
Pozar to Bob Hartman and Vince Perriello when domains were first invented
to extend the addressing of FidoNet compatible systems.  However, as you
point out, the ".org" is both superfluous and meaningless - an
internet gateway needs to translate the address anyway, so it really serves
no purpose whatsoever.

In fact, using cosmetic appendages is and has already done damage to domain
addressing. Most implementations - including that built into my own
software - have to ignore the superfluous data in order to route mail, and
this is ultimately harmful in the long run as it (a) places a special
significance on the character '.' in a domain string where there is no real
for doing so other than to implement this (Yet Another :-() kludge, and (b)
inhibits extension of the domain to use of subdomains in t
he future since this is incompatible with allowing mail to be reliably routed now.

As far as I'm concerned, the quicker we can 'stamp out' this aberrant
domain usage, the better for all concerned. It isn't possible to just
'bounce' mail with this sort of domain since a message may be perfectly FTS
compliant otherwise. The only thing we can hope to do is to convince people
to do the right thing.


[ message text edited ]


david

-+-
 + Origin: Unique Computing Pty Ltd (3:632/348)

   ----- Forwarded message ends -----


 AC>> Of course, you're always welcome to explain why you used
 AC>> "fidonet.com" as an originating domain.

 > Actually, if I recall, it was listed in BinkleyTerm as such.  I've
 > also seen, fido, fidonet, fido.com fidonet.com.

The BinkleyTerm documentation mentions "fidonet.org", which is incorrect.

 AC>> Something tells me I shouldn't hold my breath, though.

 > You shouldn't stupid. Don't you know you will turn blue and die.

Thanks for the tip.

--- Msgedsq/2 3.38