If icann sells www as a tld domain then your use of www as a machine name you may refer to unqualified is a risk because virtually every piece of software in the world respects public issuance until you delete it all if you can.

The DNS naming confusion was largely dealt with by having a small number of TLDs and rarely referring to complex things like partially specified subdomains, but every once in a while a fool named their machine com, org, or net. (Though these as subdomains were far more toxic.)

▲

dc396 5 days ago | parent [-]

You might want to look at the "domain" directive of resolv.conf and the concept of "split horizon DNS".

▲

postquantumfax 5 days ago | parent [-]

I've done plenty of interesting things but a distributed correction attempt for ICANN's incompetence is never going to be adequate. You can read their own work on gTLDs in the past to know they understand this.

▲

dc396 5 days ago | parent [-]

Accusing ICANN of incompetence when you can't be bothered to configure your DNS to avoid leaking queries to the root is an interesting approach.

	▲	postquantumfax 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		There's no leak being discussed. Everyone in the world sets resolving and it is what it is with the current TLDs when ICANN needs more coke money they possibly break every node in the world and a distributed group of thousands has to look if something bad happened. There is the argument that ICANN should no longer be consulted ever by nodes of consequence but that is an argument that they have failed 100% in their responsibilities. If you don't care at all about zone delegation and global resolution then you obviously don't have an opinion on how to evaluate ICANNs stewardship of global domain delegation. We have run out if IPv4 addresses but there is NAT is not a satisfying answer to start. But we have let ICANN polute naming so let's implement shadow naming everywhere is an even less satisfactory answer.