On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 14:44 -0500, Steve Staples wrote: > On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 19:00 +0000, Ashley Sheridan wrote: > > On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 17:07 +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote: > > > > > Hello Ashley Sheridan, > > > > > > Am 2011-01-08 17:09:27, hacktest Du folgendes herunter: > > > > Also, each label is checked to ensure it doesn't run over 63 characters, > > > > and the whole thing isn't over 253 characters. Lastly, each label is > > > > checked to ensure it doesn't completely consist of digits. > > > > > > Do you know, that there are MANY domains with numbers only? > > > > > > Like <163.com> or <126.net> which are legal names. > > > > > > Oh I should mention that I block ANY mails from this two domains since > > > chinese spamers use it excessively. > > > > > > Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening > > > Michelle Konzack > > > > > > > > > I just based the code on the spec. > > > > Thanks, > > Ash > > http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk > > > > > > my old (still kinda active but not really) business was/is called > 990WEBS, and my URL is www.990webs.ca / www.990webs.com is the url with > preceeding numerals an issue? or is this only numerals only? > > it also is my business number :P 990-9327 (WEBS) > > TheStapler.ca is also my domain... which is a my nickname (last name > is staples).... ANYWAY... way off topic there, was just wodnering about > the "legality" of my 990webs domains... since i can't think of any other > domains that start with numbers off the top of my head? > > > > -- > > Steve Staples > Web Application Developer > 519.258.2333 x8414 > > Ah, it was my mistake, I misread the spec. It's only the TLD that must not be completely numeric, so that check can be taken out of the code I gave earlier. Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
