I also reached out to them on Twitter but they directed me to this form. I followed up with them on Twitter with what happened in this screenshot but they are now ignoring me.

  • RubberElectrons@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Mmm… That doesn’t seem right, it’s usually gotta be fully expanded to at least a particular A record/MX.

    How would you tie the tld itself to an MX?

    • TwitchingCheese@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      TLD is just another DNS layer, try an SOA or NS lookup for “com.” those are obviously hosted somewhere. Hell the “.” at the end is even another layer with the root nameservers. You’d probably trip up a bunch of systems that filter on common convention rather than the actual RFC, but you could do it.

      • RubberElectrons@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        How the hell were the original rfc designers so creative as to result in such a flexible system?? It’s gets crazier the more you look at it.

        • PoolloverNathan@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          It makes the system as a whole simpler. Your computer only needs to remember one root DNS server (although most computers allow setting 4 for redundancy) as opposed to one DNS server for each TLD, and it also makes adding TLDs easier.