does domain phx.gbl exist?

[Beemer Biker]

I have been seeing phx.gbl show up, usually in usenet postings, and was
wondering if it is real. A google of "what is phx.gbl" shows a (cached)
ExpertExchange discussion here
http://tinyurl.com/rntzg (look at very bottom for answer).

quoting the answer:
Accepted Answer from The--Captain
Date: 07/06/2005 11:24PM PDT
Grade: A
Accepted Answer


Here's the definitive method to determine a domain's existence:

dig @198.41.0.4 <domain>

or in your case:

dig @198.41.0.4 phx.gbl

198.41.0.4 happens to be one of the IP addresses of
a.root-servers.net, which is one of the DNS servers that contains all the
relevant information for all root domains - the 'dig' command reveals that
there are no authoritative servers for the .gbl root domain, and as such the
domain is completely bogus.

Cheers,
-Jon


--------end of quote----
i do not have "dig" in system32 commands, maybe dig is linux?? Sam Spade
has "dig" but it is grayed out on my win2k system. Is that something
useful?

So I gather that phx.gbl is not a valid domain. If an nntp posting ip had
***@phx.gbl then it is forged???

[Munger Joe]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:04:22 -0500, "Beemer Biker" <***@swri.edu>
wrote:

...

Post by Beemer Biker
i do not have "dig" in system32 commands, maybe dig is linux??

There are Windoze ports of dig.

Post by Beemer Biker
Sam Spade
has "dig" but it is grayed out on my win2k system. Is that something
useful?

You need to put a DNS server in Edit|Options|Basic|Default Nameserver.
One that will do recursive lookups for you via TCP queries. Yeah, it can
be very useful, but it can be very confusing, too. In this case, I
wouldn't have known what to make of the answer that came back via SSP
(Malformed name in RR).

Post by Beemer Biker
So I gather that phx.gbl is not a valid domain. If an nntp posting ip had

Not really. I'm not sure exactly what the deal is, but it has something
to do with Microsoft. You probably saw that domain in a MS newsgroup
post, right? There's either a MS web interface or a MS NNTP server that
uses that in the Message-Id and/or Path it creates. You might also see
"Lines: 1" in the header no many how many lines there are. Wankers.

[Ant]

Post by Beemer Biker
I have been seeing phx.gbl show up, usually in usenet postings, and was
wondering if it is real.

Look at posts in the microsoft.public.* hierarchy on the news sever
msnews.microsoft.com and you will see it in the path. You will also
see it in message-IDs for posts originating from that server.

Post by Beemer Biker
i do not have "dig" in system32 commands, maybe dig is linux?? Sam Spade
has "dig" but it is grayed out on my win2k system. Is that something
useful?

Dig is a unix DNS lookup utility. Versions have been ported to Win32.
You can get equivalent info from nslookup by setting one of the debug
options.

Post by Beemer Biker
So I gather that phx.gbl is not a valid domain.

Looks like a Microsoft thing.
Probably not.

[Mike Easter]

Post by Beemer Biker
I have been seeing phx.gbl show up, usually in usenet postings, and
was wondering if it is real.

That 'extender' is the way the MS newsserver msnews.microsoft.com stamps
its message id/s.

Message-ID: <uE8rz$***@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>

It has nothing to do with a domainname.

It also shows in the Path that way. Here's a path from the ms news
server to itself:

Path: TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl

Post by Beemer Biker
i do not have "dig" in system32 commands, maybe dig is linux?? Sam
Spade has "dig" but it is grayed out on my win2k system.

That seems strange. SSwin performs one kind of 'dig' on an IP and
another kind of dig on a domainname.

[Vanguard]

Post by Beemer Biker
I have been seeing phx.gbl show up, usually in usenet postings, and was
wondering if it is real.

<snip>

According to RFC 1036 "Standard for Interchange of USENET Messages"
(which refers to RFC 822), the Message-ID is supposed to contain the
domain name. It says, "In order to conform to RFC-822, the Message-ID
must have the format: ***@full_domain_name". Microsoft is known for
not complying to RFCs.

[Beemer Biker]

Post by Vanguard

Post by Beemer Biker
I have been seeing phx.gbl show up, usually in usenet postings, and was
wondering if it is real.

<snip>
According to RFC 1036 "Standard for Interchange of USENET Messages"
(which refers to RFC 822), the Message-ID is supposed to contain the
domain name. It says, "In order to conform to RFC-822, the Message-ID
not complying to RFCs.

Yea, but if everyone fully complied with every little RFC, wouldnt it be a
really dull little world? I mean, imagine if every post in this news group
was rational and sane.

[Vanguard]

Post by Beemer Biker

Post by Vanguard

Post by Beemer Biker
I have been seeing phx.gbl show up, usually in usenet postings, and was
wondering if it is real.

<snip>
According to RFC 1036 "Standard for Interchange of USENET Messages"
(which refers to RFC 822), the Message-ID is supposed to contain the
domain name. It says, "In order to conform to RFC-822, the
Message-ID
not complying to RFCs.

Yea, but if everyone fully complied with every little RFC, wouldnt it be a
really dull little world? I mean, imagine if every post in this news group
was rational and sane.

The RFCs do not dicate the content of Usenet posts. How could you use a
web browser, any web browser, if they didn't follow enough of the
standards so they could actually transfer traffic to and from another
host? Your NNTP client couldn't thread together the separate posts to
put them together for ease in following a conversation without
standards. You couldn't attach files to e-mail without standards. You
couldn't e-mail without standards. You couldn't even speak without
standards (no one cares about some babbling idiot that no one but
themself understands). Nothing of what you use for Internet access and
communication would exist without standards. Some are highly critical.
Some are recommended or suggested. And some are just de facto
standards. I see nothing recommended, suggested, or optional regarding
the syntax for the Message-ID field.

[Morely Dotes]

Post by Beemer Biker
Yea, but if everyone fully complied with every little RFC, wouldnt it
be a really dull little world? I mean, imagine if every post in this
news group was rational and sane.

If everyone complied with every little RFC, there wouldn't be any posts in
this newsgroup - because there wouldn't be any spam, and therefor no reason
for alt.spam

[anon]

Can you put that in layman's terms, Mr. "Dotes"?

Post by Morely Dotes

Post by Beemer Biker
Yea, but if everyone fully complied with every little RFC, wouldnt it
be a really dull little world? I mean, imagine if every post in this
news group was rational and sane.

If everyone complied with every little RFC, there wouldn't be any
posts in this newsgroup - because there wouldn't be any spam, and
therefor no reason for alt.spam

[Munger Joe]

Post by Morely Dotes
If everyone complied with every little RFC, there wouldn't be any posts in
this newsgroup - because there wouldn't be any spam, and therefor no reason
for alt.spam

Little slab of meat
In a wash of clear jelly
Now I heat the pan

[Ant]

Post by Munger Joe

Post by Morely Dotes
If everyone complied with every little RFC, there wouldn't be any posts in
this newsgroup - because there wouldn't be any spam, and therefor no reason
for alt.spam

Little slab of meat
In a wash of clear jelly
Now I heat the pan

Yea, what is that stuff
That doth jiggle in the breeze
For your newsgroups file

[Munger Joe]

Post by Ant

Post by Munger Joe
Little slab of meat
In a wash of clear jelly
Now I heat the pan

Yea, what is that stuff
That doth jiggle in the breeze
For your newsgroups file

Spam is not Jello
That yields to nature's whispers.
Bwad... killfile... jiggle