# Re: host vs hostname (Was: CID: and MID: URL schemes)

Barton E. Schaefer (schaefer@z-code.ncd.com)
Thu, 2 Nov 1995 11:24:03 -0800

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Ned Freed: "Re: host vs hostname (Was: CID: and MID: URL schemes)"
- Previous message: Ed Levinson: "Re: CID: and MID: URL schemes"
- Next in thread: Ed Levinson: "Re: host vs hostname (Was: CID: and MID: URL schemes)"
- Reply: Ed Levinson: "Re: host vs hostname (Was: CID: and MID: URL schemes)"

    From: schaefer@z-code.ncd.com (Barton E. Schaefer)

    Message-Id: <951102112403.ZM15461@zyrcon.z-code.com>

    Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 11:24:03 -0800

    In-Reply-To: Ned Freed <NED@INNOSOFT.COM>

    To: Ned Freed <NED@INNOSOFT.COM>, Ed Levinson <elevinso@accurate.com>

    Subject: Re: host vs hostname (Was: CID: and MID: URL schemes)

On Nov 2, 9:48am, Ned Freed wrote:
} Subject: Re: host vs hostname (Was: CID: and MID: URL schemes)
}
} > However, converting id-spec' into a message-ID (content-ID) becomes
} > problematical. Rfc 822 requires, I think, that a message-ID containing
} > a host's IP address (hostnumber) have the form "[" digits "." digits "."
} > digits "." digits"]"
}
} RFC822 actually doesn't specify what a domain literal looks like or how it
} should be interpreted.

No, but RFC1123 specifies in sections 2.1 and 5.2.17 that domain literals
"whose content ... is a dotted-decimal host address" MUST be accepted by
mailers as a valid host identifier.

    --
    Bart Schaefer                     Vice President, Technology, Z-Code Software
    schaefer@z-code.com                  Division of NCD Software Corporation
    http://www.well.com/www/barts

- Next message: Ned Freed: "Re: host vs hostname (Was: CID: and MID: URL schemes)"
- Previous message: Ed Levinson: "Re: CID: and MID: URL schemes"
- Next in thread: Ed Levinson: "Re: host vs hostname (Was: CID: and MID: URL schemes)"
- Reply: Ed Levinson: "Re: host vs hostname (Was: CID: and MID: URL schemes)"