Computing desk
< February 19	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 21 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 20[edit]

Sender's messages in Courier New[edit]

Some Gmail messages I received from a person are written in Courier New, while some are in default Times New Roman (the sender's email is also Gmail). Since Gmail now doesn't have the Courier New font, why it could be so? Perhaps copy-pasting and scam? Brandmeister^talk 20:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The gmail web interface doesn't support Courier New, but html email supports whatever fonts are installed on the system viewing the document. If the email was composed in outlook, for example, the writer would have access to whatever fonts were installed on their system, and so long as you had the same font, it would show up as that, as well.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

21:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, not all emails are in html format, plain text format is still common (and supported on gmail). Plain text format emails are typically shown in a fixed width format, and on windows computers that defaults to courier new. Jahoe (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Approved Very true. This depends on the browser, as well. But I don't think this is the case because the OP mentioned it not being supported, leading me to believe he's using the web interface, which uses the default font unless otherwise specified (as far as I know; all my plain text emails from work to my gmail use the same font as my html emails).

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

23:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right I suppose. Anyway, I believe we can safely say the OP shouldn't mistrust these emails, based on the courier new font alone. Jahoe (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She's now actually asking for 530 bucks, allegedly to be able to fly to me, so... Fishy. Brandmeister^talk 15:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... dollars are a better ground for suspicion than fonts. :-) Jahoe (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's any consolation, I get propositioned on social media sites that don't actually exist (southforlidafuckbuddiestonightforfree.net.co being a typical name, including the obvious spelling error) by users with names like xXSexyGurl69MuahXx and IlOvEaNaL999 about five times a day. Funnily enough, all of them need money to afford the plane ticket to come visit me, too. Even when the social media site is incredibly geographically specific and the email states quite clearly that they live within 4 miles of me and are very very lonely. But then, I've had that email address for going on 20 years now, so I expect plenty of spam.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

19:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the local domain tree[edit]

Once upon a time, it was expected that local businesses in the USA would use geographic domains, and .com would be used only by companies with a wider footprint, such as airlines. Of course that's not what happened, but I remember seeing that a couple of ISPs used that form at least for a while: well.sf.ca.us (soon changed to well.com; in Sausalito, near San Francisco, California) and [forgotten].chi.il.us (Chicago, Illinois).

How many of these third-level domains were defined? Is there a map? —Tamfang (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a list on WP: List of Internet top-level domains.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

23:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just re-read the question, and realize this needs a further answer. The lower-level domain names you are seeing there are the domains that are traditionally considered the 'base' web name. So the aol in aol.com is at the same level of domain hierarchy as the il in chi.il.us. The chi in that url is a subdomain, similar to the en in en.wikipedia.org and generally indicated (at the time) that that particular site was hosted on the servers owned or leased by whomever was running the il.us site. The best known sub-domain is, of course, www, used to indicate that the site at whatever domain used that sub was for public consumption, and not, for example, private in-house use. Normally, as you read an file address from left to right, you get more specific. This is not true with internet domains (though it is true of the folder structure that follows the first forward slash /). With domain names, like chi.il.us, the us is the broadest level, and the chi is the most specific level.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

23:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Does anyone else need "these", as used in my last sentence, defined? The question is not about the concept of subdomains, or about third-level domains in general (like en.wikipedia.org), but about geographic subdomains of ak.us, al.us, ar.us, az.us, ca.us, co.us, ct.us, de.us, fl.us, ga.us, hi.us, ia.us, id.us, il.us, in.us, ks.us, ky.us, la.us, ma.us, md.us, me.us, mi.us, mn.us, mo.us, ms.us, mt.us, nc.us, nd.us, ne.us, nh.us, nj.us, nm.us, nv.us, ny.us, oh.us, ok.us, or.us, pa.us, ri.us, sc.us, sd.us, tn.us, tx.us, ut.us, va.us, vt.us, wa.us, wi.us, wv.us, wy.us. (If I had a nickel for every time I said "I thought I made clear ...") —Tamfang (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason that you assume one of the states is missing? When I lived in California, the school district had the URL morongo.k12.ca.us. So, I know that CA exists. Then, I moved to Missouri and they used pcr3.k12.mo.us, so I know that MO exists. I now live in South Carolina and this school district uses greenville.k12.sc.us. I see a pattern. Google Hawaii school district and you will find ehr.k12.hi.us. How about Montana school district... baker.k12.mt.us. I feel that it is upon you to give a reason why you think that there is a state missing before asking someone else to go through all 50 states and prove that they exist. -OR- You could look at the .us article and see that it clearly states "A two-letter second-level domain is formally reserved for each U.S. state, federal territory, and the District of Columbia." 209.149.113.5 (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only authoritative source about domain names is of course DNS itself.

I don't believe it's possible to generate the requested map from DNS queries alone. I'm not a DNS expert and if I'm missing something, that would clearly be the way to go.

Of course it is possible to test a domain name for existence (e.g. nslookup chi.il.us). That would make it theoretically possible to test all letter combinations (up to a certain length), but I guess this is not practical.

Did anyone ever try to do something like this? Jahoe (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know it isn't so clear from the followup, but the original question says it's about third level geographic subdomains, not second level. Anyway as I understand [1], [2], [3] and our article, the answer is very high and easily expandable. Note that locality subdomains also don't end at the third level. Note also the use of present tense is intentional, even if few actually use the things. Nil Einne (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Nice to know that at least one person went so far as to read the question. — And thanks for the links. Since well.sf.ca.us was not in San Francisco (it's in Sausalito, Marin County), I supposed that the third level was (at that time) loosely analogous to telephone area codes, which (in my youth!) covered regions much bigger than their core cities. Note that the examples in the documents you cited, such as ci.springfield.ta.us, spell out the city or county name in full, unlike *.sf.ca.us and *.chi.il.us that I mentioned. —Tamfang (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be deprecated now. In the PDF "In a few cases in the past, a well - known city abbreviation known throughout a locality was allowed, eventually these abbreviated names will be replaced with the fully spelled out versions. It is very desirable that all users in the same city use the same designator for the city." Nil Einne (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW to clarify my answer, while most of these documents are fairly old, my impression is it's still technically possible for an entity to become a delegated manager of a locality subdomain. AFAICT the regulations etc are technically still in place. E.g. [4] [5]. So technically the space can still expand. Practically I get the feeling of you actually tried, you'd have great difficulty finding someone who knew WTF to do. Even for the existing space, I get the feeling e.g. [6] and my earlier links that things are such a mess with WHOIS records incomplete and many delegated managers MIA that you're often SIL. (This also means finding out what exists is likely to be difficult.) Still in some cases you may be lucky. I mean even for something like [7] I wouldn't be surprised if you can find someone who knows or can figure out what to do. Nil Einne (talk) 03:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no definitive answer to this, and the question is a little silly: The vast majority of geographic domain names are top or second level. The problems with reserving or formalizing third level geographic domain names are too numerous to count. Obviously, some get used. But as evinced by the IP's example and the examples at .us, it's not a common thing. Personally, I wouldn't ever reserve a domain with three levels of geography in it unless I absolutely had to. I would fight it tooth and nail if it were for a commercial enterprise. Keeping domain names simple and easy to remember is rule number 1 of choosing a domain name. I presumed that the OP didn't have much knowledge of DNS, to ask such a question. That may have been an incorrect assumption, but it was the impression I got from the question. $ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.$ 19:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's see. In my intro I said that the tiered geographic scheme was rarely used for commercial sites, and that I know at least two domains of the type asked about were used. So obviously I'm totally ignorant. —Tamfang (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

U mad, Bro? You sure seem like it. But I apologize unreservedly for attempting to answer your questions. It's a mistake I shall never make again, and I'll be sure to advise others not to, as well. Even when (as was the case here), there is a blatantly obvious answer to anyone who has any knowledge of the subject.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

20:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, shall I no longer get answers from people who don't read my questions? —Tamfang (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sure WP is full of people who buy into that whole "there's no such thing as a stupid question" tripe. I fully support your quest to prove them wrong. ;)

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

21:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Aren't we only talking about the .us space? Nil Einne (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in this, apparently obsolete, document.

All I can find is archived copies of archived copies, so I'm not 100% sure of it's providence, but I believe it was originally published by InterNIC.

http://owen.sj.ca.us/~rk/howto/usdomainname.html

ApLundell (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fascinating bit of history that they once thought businesses would use this scheme. Imagine "Visit Joe's Pizza at joes.springfield.ma.us!", and the format for government agencies, which is still occasionally used, is even more awkward.

This must be an artifact of ~~nerds~~ technical experts not realizing that lay people would ever use the system they were building. ApLundell (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT, that some sort of modified version of RFC 1480 [8]. Another version is here [9]. BTW, I'm not sure how much of this is actually technically obsolete. While direct 2LD .us is now possible, as I mentioned above AFAICT the locality/geographical space in .us is still supposed to function the same. Practically almost no one uses it, but as I mentioned above my impression is if you meet the right conditions you could make a new TLD locality subdomain although you may have to try very hard to find someone who knows what to do. Nil Einne (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]