Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #267822

Re: Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP)

From Alain D D Williams <addw@phcomp.co.uk>
Newsgroups linux.debian.user
Subject Re: Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP)
Date 2024-02-25 12:30 +0100
Message-ID <IbkRH-cwlS-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References (5 earlier) <Ib0zD-cjD6-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <Ib0SZ-cjYO-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <Ib3xv-clm9-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <Ib7Ut-codg-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <IbaSl-cqaY-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization Parliament Hill Computers Ltd

Show all headers | View raw

On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 07:44:44PM -0500, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 7:37 PM Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > Turning back more to protocol design, we have spent decades walking
> > back Postel's Law as we find more and more ways that being liberal
> > in what our software accepts is untenable in the face of a hostile
> > Internet.
> 
> ++. Postel's Law is a disaster nowadays. It was fine back in the
> 1980's, but it is dangerous in the toxic environments of today.
> 
> Here's what we teach our developers: Look for any reason you can to
> reject the data. If you can't find a reason, then begrudgingly perform
> the processing or transformation.

There is a difference between not doing validation (eg a field being numeric)
and flexibility (eg a line length being 100 bytes which is more than the
specified 80 bytes). This is what Postel is talking about.

Otherwise I completely agree: validate, validate, validate - if I accept your
bad data then it becomes my problem, if I reject it then you have to fix it.
Unfortunately people will complain if you do this "everyone accepts the data",
to which I reply "please tell me exactly what it means" - which should shut
them up.

-- 
Alain Williams
Linux/GNU Consultant - Mail systems, Web sites, Networking, Programmer, IT Lecturer.
+44 (0) 787 668 0256  https://www.phcomp.co.uk/
Parliament Hill Computers. Registration Information: https://www.phcomp.co.uk/Contact.html
#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Ralph Aichinger <ra@h5.or.at> - 2024-02-22 11:40 +0100
  Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-23 07:10 +0100
  Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-23 10:50 +0100
    Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-02-23 11:00 +0100
      Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2024-02-23 11:10 +0100
        Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP tomas@tuxteam.de - 2024-02-23 11:20 +0100
      Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-23 12:20 +0100
    Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Alain D D Williams <addw@phcomp.co.uk> - 2024-02-23 11:10 +0100
      Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2024-02-23 11:30 +0100
        Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-02-23 19:30 +0100
      Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Mike Castle <dalgoda+debian@gmail.com> - 2024-03-14 19:30 +0100
        Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2024-03-15 01:50 +0100
          Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Alain D D Williams <addw@phcomp.co.uk> - 2024-03-15 09:50 +0100
            Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Mike Castle <dalgoda+debian@gmail.com> - 2024-03-15 17:10 +0100
              Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-03-15 17:20 +0100
              Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2024-03-15 17:40 +0100
            Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2024-03-15 17:30 +0100
          Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Will Mengarini <seldon@eskimo.com> - 2024-03-15 19:20 +0100
            Please terminate this faecal matter - the whole thread appears to be  a troll.....Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Bret Busby <bret@busby.net> - 2024-03-15 20:00 +0100
              Re: Please terminate this faecal matter - the whole thread appears to  be a troll.....Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for  network bonding/LACP Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2024-03-15 23:30 +0100
            Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2024-03-15 21:50 +0100
    Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Arno Lehmann <al@its-lehmann.de> - 2024-02-23 12:50 +0100
      Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2024-02-23 13:20 +0100
      Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-23 13:40 +0100
      Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-24 23:30 +0100
        Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net> - 2024-02-25 00:20 +0100
          Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-02-25 07:30 +0100
            Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-25 08:40 +0100
            Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-25 12:50 +0100
    Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-23 15:50 +0100
  Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2024-02-23 11:10 +0100
    Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Roger Price <roger@rogerprice.org> - 2024-02-23 11:50 +0100
      Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-23 12:20 +0100
        Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-23 15:40 +0100
    Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2024-02-23 17:30 +0100
      Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2024-02-23 19:10 +0100
        Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Gremlin <scott-andrews@columbus.rr.com> - 2024-02-23 19:20 +0100
          Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2024-02-23 21:00 +0100
        Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2024-02-23 20:00 +0100
          Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2024-02-24 12:30 +0100
            Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP jeremy ardley <jeremy.ardley@gmail.com> - 2024-02-24 12:40 +0100
              Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2024-02-24 14:50 +0100
                Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2024-02-24 15:10 +0100
                Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Alain D D Williams <addw@phcomp.co.uk> - 2024-02-24 18:00 +0100
                Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-02-24 19:40 +0100
                Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-24 23:20 +0100
                Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-02-25 07:20 +0100
                Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-25 08:40 +0100
                Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP tomas@tuxteam.de - 2024-02-25 10:30 +0100
                Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Geert Stappers <stappers@stappers.nl> - 2024-02-25 10:40 +0100
                Reply to list vs. group reply [was: Inlclusive terminology...] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-02-25 10:50 +0100
                Re: Reply to list vs. group reply [was: Inlclusive terminology...] Geert Stappers <stappers@stappers.nl> - 2024-02-25 13:20 +0100
                Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of  master/slave) for network bonding/LACP) Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-24 22:40 +0100
                Re: Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of  master/slave) for network bonding/LACP) Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2024-02-25 01:50 +0100
                Re: Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of  master/slave) for network bonding/LACP) Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-25 12:10 +0100
                Re: Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of  master/slave) for network bonding/LACP) Alain D D Williams <addw@phcomp.co.uk> - 2024-02-25 12:30 +0100
                Re: Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of  master/slave) for network bonding/LACP) Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-25 13:00 +0100
                Re: Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of  master/slave) for network bonding/LACP) Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2024-02-25 02:00 +0100
                Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2024-03-14 18:00 +0100
                Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-24 21:50 +0100
                Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2024-02-25 00:30 +0100
                Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-25 00:50 +0100
                Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-25 12:40 +0100
    Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Ralph Aichinger <ra@h5.or.at> - 2024-02-23 21:20 +0100
  Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-23 15:50 +0100
    Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP fxkl47BF@protonmail.com - 2024-02-23 16:00 +0100
      Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-23 18:20 +0100
        Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-23 21:20 +0100
          Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Ralph Aichinger <ra@h5.or.at> - 2024-02-23 21:50 +0100
            Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-23 22:20 +0100
          Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-24 03:40 +0100
            Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-24 04:00 +0100
              Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-24 23:20 +0100
                Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-24 23:30 +0100
    Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-23 18:20 +0100
      Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Ralph Aichinger <ra@h5.or.at> - 2024-02-23 21:30 +0100
        Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2024-02-23 22:40 +0100
  Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2024-02-23 20:40 +0100

csiph-web