on Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 04:30:54PM -0400, Rob McEwen wrote:
That is precisely why I did say, "in case my terminology is not quite technically accurate"... I had a feeling it wasn't!!!
But I'm not so sure I'm unconfused yet by Stephen's explanation... perhaps I'm now **less** confused :) But thanks, Stephen, I do need all the help I can get!
No ph. Just a v. :)
It's all a matter of how the records are defined.
example.com has a single DNS zone. All A records defined in that zone are hosts, plain and simple.
example.net has two DNS zones: foo.example.net and bar.example.net. Records defined in the foo zone (e.g., www.foo.example.net) are hosts in the foo subdomain. Records defined in the bar zone (e.g., mail.bar.example.net) are in the bar subdomain.
Nevertheless, I can define 'www.foo' in 'example.com' and it's just a host, albeit a host with a name containing a period.
In a nutshell: if there are further hosts defined in the zone, and the responsibility for managing those hosts is distinct from the authoritative source for info about the domain, it's a subdomain.
Anyway. The problem is that most of the Web hosting control panels that expose the ability to define 'A' records call them "subdomains", which is simply incorrect.
Still... back to my original question, does anyone know of a "clearinghouse" list of such abuser's who, by definition, will never get explicitly listed in SURBL?
Nope. Sorry. It'd be nice to have, though.