Talk:Pseudo-top-level domain

phx.gbl

Perhaps there should be some explanation about the unofficial domain phx.gbl unilaterally created by Microsoft? – Kaihsu (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, inclusion in wikipedia requires a reliable source and I can't even find an unreliable source explaining what the heck phx.gbl is. The best explanation I've found is The Black Hole called Hotmail page and On The Importance of Reverse DNS (most of the discussion is at the bottom), but neither of these pages have any real answers. Right now, the rDNS for 65.55.232.16 is bl1sch2041307.phx.gbl. and, as per the hotmail blackhole page, ns.msft.net is still claiming it has authority over phx.gbl. According to this post on the GNSO ICANN mailing list, microsoft also claims authoritative for the .local TLD. Let me know if you find anything! Wrs1864 (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is two and a half years since I started that Hotmail page and I feel almost no closer to a proper explanation of phx.gbl - I almost feel like offering a reward for information:-: Ianji (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no information as to its origin (beyond that already said). Microsoft appears to be its only user. I kill any communication that bears it on sight as a misconfiguration (e-mail, Usenet, web server access, etc., it doesn't matter - it's all killed). 71.106.209.107 (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quora - Network Protocols: Where does phx.gbl in all Microsoft e-mail headers derive from? seems to be the answer. It says: "phx.gbl is an internal Active Directory domain that Microsoft uses to manage datacenter machines. It gets added to message headers as a way to trace what machines actually saw a message when Microsoft needs to diagnose specific problems. The name is equivalent to a *.local domain some organizations use for AD management. It is by design that these machines are not addressable from the internet as part of Microsoft's defense in depth security planning." Fernando Gutierrez (talk) 04:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

.clos

What about the clos Pseudo TLD? --PolynomialHelix (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]