Typosquatting

logically

That would not be logical, as a .com and a .net could be very different.

It's a local thing, i.e., local to your own domain name. You can have more than one server hanging on the domain name by using the 'www' part to designate a local box by routing tables and stuff. Most browsers I've tried usually fill in the www. part for you, even though it's not necessary.

I'm sure you've seen URLs with like www2.example.com and so on - the guys at example put that there.

Hope This Helps! Rich

No, I mean the one that gives them access to your money.

Hope This Helps! Rich

Sure. I don't remember a time where it was needed. Eg. finance.yahoo.com was Yahoo's stock quotation site quite some time back.

www2 and such are usually shadows of the original. Often when accessing www you'll actually get ahold of something like www2.

logically

Your point? .xyz and .zzyyz are different too. It greatly expands the name space, making cybersquatting impossible.

Money?? According to Helicopter Ben, that does not exist until he prints yet another ten Trillion dollars.

claim

which

(.com,

It

did

soon

Technically, no. It is/was just traditional.

snipped-for-privacy@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal

avoid a

you'd logically

looks

will

spam.

can be

use a

latent

handwww.mircosoft.comyouwill

ask

them.

things as

Bayesian

twice

one

fairly

never

easier to

a

oddball

the

16] 2001 [CFWS]

"[",

Internet

the

mail

addresses,

claim

which

(.com,

different.

name

IFF completely opening up TLDs could really be done (there are technical issues making it difficult, like the current domain name resolution system, DNS, and router protocols such as RIP, GRIP, ARP, RARP, BGP). On the other hand it might make cybersquatting uncontrollable. It would for sure create economic dislocations from the current situation.

=46ire ICANN, let IETF do it again, they did a better job.

?=3D)