My primary concern remains the proactive prevention of Tezos domains being registered that, in their full and untruncated form, could closely mimic the 36-character length and structure of actual Tezos addresses (e.g., a 36-character domain starting ‘tz1’).
While I understand your points regarding the current perceived unlikelihood of such attacks, @Snorlax.tez , though it is worth noting that a lack of direct observation does not entirely preclude the possibility of such incidents occurring or the potential for future exploitation, and the separate issue of UI truncation, my proposal focuses on the foundational registration level.
The core aim is to eliminate the possibility of registering a domain that is itself a 36-character string directly resembling a full Tezos address. Leaving this avenue open, now that it has been highlighted, might inadvertently suggest that registering a domain which mirrors another individual’s Tezos address (which they do not own or control) is permissible, which I’d hope Tezos Domain was against, no matter how likely/unlikely such a phishing attack is.
This suggested limitation is intended as a complementary, system-level safeguard. It aims to reduce one specific potential avenue for deception by ensuring a clearer distinction between domain names and full address strings as they are registered, contributing to a more robust and trustworthy ecosystem.