From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 20 22:13:59 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0FDD16A41A; Sat, 20 Jan 2007 22:13:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net) Received: from transport.cksoft.de (transport.cksoft.de [62.111.66.27]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 771B013C4D9; Sat, 20 Jan 2007 22:13:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net) Received: from transport.cksoft.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by transport.cksoft.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D9391FFE79; Sat, 20 Jan 2007 22:43:02 +0100 (CET) Received: by transport.cksoft.de (Postfix, from userid 66) id 4B1261FFE78; Sat, 20 Jan 2007 22:42:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net (maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net [10.111.66.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.int.zabbadoz.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16BBD444AFE; Sat, 20 Jan 2007 21:42:44 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 21:42:44 +0000 (UTC) From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" X-X-Sender: bz@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net To: Hajimu UMEMOTO In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070120214052.U82671@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> References: <20070120192807.GA1326@sandvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS cksoft-s20020300-20031204bz on transport.cksoft.de Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Ed Maste Subject: Re: inet_pton and oddly-formatted addresses X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 22:13:59 -0000 On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote: > Hi, > >>>>>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 14:28:07 -0500 >>>>>> Ed Maste said: > > emaste> I think an address like 1.002.3.4 is bizarre, but is our inet_pton incorrect > emaste> in rejecting it? > > The change was taken from BIND9. The following is from BIND9's > CHANGES: > > 935. [bug] inet_pton failed to reject leading zeros. well, maybe they were wrong? How does one get in contact with their bugs database these days? Is comp.protocols.dns.bind still a good place to discuss these things? -- Bjoern A. Zeeb bzeeb at Zabbadoz dot NeT