Posted by Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) on 11/01/06 01:36

"--CELKO--" <jcelko212@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1162324048.950601.49770@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
>>> a URL may not have an MX record so emailing means nothing - the URL may
>>> still be valid in terms of its existance even if you can't send email to
>>> it. <<
>
> Then it is a bit useless for e-commerce, isn't it? Apparently, not
> having a Mail Exchanger ius not a problem for all the sites that are
> using it as their custrmer id.

Here you're just plain wrong Joe.

A URL is a uniform resource locator. It has nothing to do with the MX
record.

A URL contains a hostname among other parts.

The hostname contains a domain name. BUT that host name may not be easy to
pick out.

Is foo.bar.com a hostname or a domain name?

If it's a hostname, bar.com MIGHT let you look up an MX record, but there's
no guarantee.

If it's a domainname, then foo.bar.com MIGHT let you lookup the MX record,
but there's no guarantee.

So which do you test? Both?

What if it's baz.foo.bar.com? Test it three times?


>

[Back to original message]