Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 19:09:56 -0800 From: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> To: "Louis A. Mamakos" <louie@TransSys.COM>, Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Allow underscores in DNS names Message-ID: <200303301909.56776.wes@softweyr.com> In-Reply-To: <200303300205.h2U25vDN037209@whizzo.transsys.com> References: <xzpu1dm2k2h.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <3E864AD1.6C1C3656@mindspring.com> <200303300205.h2U25vDN037209@whizzo.transsys.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 29 March 2003 18:05, Louis A. Mamakos wrote:
> > Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote:
> > > The attached patch, inspired by a discussion on -STABLE, modifies
> > > our resolver library to allow underscores in host names, by
> > > classifying the underscore as a hyphen character. Even though
> > > RFC952 forbids them, underscores are becoming increasingly common
> > > in DNS, and they are sometimes used for mechanisms (such as
> > > Microsoft's automatic proxy configuration scheme) which we might
> > > want to support in FreeBSD.
> >
> > There was a better patch that made it an option in resolv.conf,
> > rather than turning it on all the time.
>
> This is great, except that you'd don't need to have a resolv.conf
> on your system at all; the resolver will default to using a local
> caching nameserver.
In this case, you WILL need a resolv.conf if you want to use underscores,=20
then, won't you?
> > FreeBSD should be standards compliant, by default, and take work
> > to make it possible to give bogus data to other hosts on the
> > Internet who can not handle "_" or other characters because they
> > *are* standars compliant.
>
> Since this is a resolver option, you're not handing out names to
> other hosts using the DNS infrastructure.
>
> > "Be conservative in what you send."
>
> And liberal in what you receive, which is exactly what modifing
> the resolver to not cause gethostbyname() and it's ilk to barf
> on these types of names.
>
> There are lots of things in ancient RFCs which probably do not
> make as much sense these days as they once did.=20
I strongly suspect that this discussion, like many in the networking=20
arena, are caused by a pack of fools not bothering to read the RFCs=20
before plunging off on a tangent and then later calling their stupidity a=20
'feature' rather than admitting they made a mistake.
Nothing about the advisability of using wild character sets in DNS names=20
has changed except for the widespread misuse of it by a certain=20
implementation that fails to enforce the RFC requirements. This is not=20
necessarily a good reason to adulterate FreeBSD.
I'm not arguing for or against any position, just making sure the=20
conversation stays on track. This is not a matter of FreeBSD being=20
wrong, it's a matter of whether we want to follow Microsofts breakage.
> If there is a
> security issue in applications, they should get fixed regardless.
> All this heartburn over what the gethostbyname() library function
> chooses to believe from the DNS still doesn't address getting
> hostnames out of NIS or /etc/hosts.
Especially since we have a new implementation of gethostbyname on the way,=
=20
from a programmer who doesn't suck. That doesn't mean we won't have to=20
fix the old one in 4.x, but it does mean we won't have to keep patching=20
the old one with every other hairbrained DNS naming scheme (i.e. the Big5=20
vs. UTF argument) some other batch of morons comes up with.
=2D-=20
Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?
Wes Peters wes@softweyr.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200303301909.56776.wes>