Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #192449 > unrolled thread
| Started by | bolakim53@mail2tor.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-02-15 15:30 +0100 |
| Last post | 2018-02-18 09:50 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 144 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
hostname bolakim53@mail2tor.com - 2018-02-15 15:30 +0100
Re: hostname Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-02-15 15:40 +0100
Re: hostname Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-02-15 17:40 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Jeremy Nicoll <jn.ml.dbn.25@letterboxes.org> - 2018-02-19 13:30 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-02-19 14:50 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Jeremy Nicoll <jn.ml.dbn.25@letterboxes.org> - 2018-02-20 20:40 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-02-20 20:50 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Jeremy Nicoll <jn.ml.dbn.25@letterboxes.org> - 2018-02-20 21:00 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-02-21 01:20 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2018-02-21 01:30 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-02-21 01:50 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Glenn English <ghe2001@gmail.com> - 2018-02-21 02:10 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2018-02-21 02:10 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2018-02-21 07:10 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2018-02-21 11:30 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-02-21 13:50 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2018-02-21 13:50 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-02-21 13:00 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2018-02-21 13:50 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2018-02-21 16:40 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Frank <zuiderduin@gmx.com> - 2018-02-23 21:00 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-02-19 17:30 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-02-19 19:40 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-02-22 19:00 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-02-23 14:00 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-02-24 04:50 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2018-02-26 11:50 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-02-26 19:00 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-02-23 14:10 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2018-02-23 18:10 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2018-03-21 17:20 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-02-23 17:20 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-03-20 23:10 +0100
Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) Ben Finney <bignose@debian.org> - 2018-03-21 00:00 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) Forest Dean Feighner <forest.feighner@gmail.com> - 2018-03-21 00:20 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-21 22:10 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) Forest Dean Feighner <forest.feighner@gmail.com> - 2018-03-21 22:10 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-21 22:30 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) Forest <forest.feighner@gmail.com> - 2018-03-22 01:40 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-22 21:40 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-03-21 09:10 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) terryc <terryc@woa.com.au> - 2018-03-21 10:40 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) "Michelle Konzack" <linux4michelle@tamay-dogan.net> - 2018-03-22 07:30 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2018-03-23 19:00 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@surfnaked.ca> - 2018-03-21 16:50 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2018-03-21 17:10 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2018-03-21 17:40 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-03-21 18:00 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2018-03-21 21:40 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2018-03-21 22:30 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2018-03-21 23:00 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2018-03-21 23:30 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-03-22 01:10 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2018-03-22 01:10 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-03-21 21:50 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2018-03-21 22:50 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-03-21 23:50 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2018-03-22 09:40 +0100
Re: Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet dekks herton <dekkzz78@gmail.com> - 2018-03-23 00:10 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2018-03-23 01:50 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-21 22:30 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-21 22:20 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2018-03-22 00:40 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-22 09:00 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2018-03-22 15:00 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-03-21 21:00 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-03-21 21:30 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2018-03-21 22:00 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-21 22:40 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-21 22:40 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2018-03-21 23:10 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-03-22 01:20 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-03-22 13:20 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2018-03-22 23:10 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-03-22 23:50 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2018-03-23 00:20 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-03-23 02:10 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2018-03-23 04:00 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2018-03-23 02:50 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2018-03-23 04:10 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-03-23 13:30 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Phil Dobbin <bukowskiscat@gmail.com> - 2018-03-23 15:10 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2018-03-23 17:50 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-03-22 01:00 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-22 09:20 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2018-03-22 09:50 +0100
Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-03-22 14:00 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-03-22 18:50 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-03-22 19:10 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-03-22 21:30 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-03-23 03:10 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2018-03-23 17:00 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-03-23 18:10 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2018-03-23 18:10 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-03-24 01:50 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2018-03-24 14:00 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname "Michelle Konzack" <linux4michelle@tamay-dogan.net> - 2018-03-24 14:10 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-03-23 20:20 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-03-23 21:10 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-03-23 21:30 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-03-24 02:30 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-03-24 02:10 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2018-03-23 23:30 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Forest <forest.feighner@gmail.com> - 2018-03-23 23:50 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-03-24 00:00 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-03-24 01:20 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-03-24 02:20 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-03-24 02:40 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-03-22 23:30 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-03-23 03:50 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-03-23 11:50 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-03-23 16:50 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-03-23 17:00 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-03-23 18:50 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-03-23 20:00 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-03-23 21:10 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-03-21 00:10 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2018-03-21 04:40 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-03-21 18:30 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-03-21 21:10 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-03-22 02:10 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2018-02-19 18:30 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-02-19 20:00 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2018-02-19 20:20 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-02-19 20:30 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2018-02-19 21:40 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-02-19 21:50 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2018-02-19 22:00 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-02-19 22:20 +0100
Re: domain names, was: hostname Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2018-02-19 22:00 +0100
Re: hostname deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-02-15 19:10 +0100
Re: hostname Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2018-02-15 20:50 +0100
Re: hostname Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-02-15 21:40 +0100
Re: hostname Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2018-02-15 23:30 +0100
Re: hostname Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2018-02-15 23:50 +0100
Re: hostname Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-02-16 01:30 +0100
Re: hostname deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-02-16 07:50 +0100
Re: hostname Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-02-16 00:50 +0100
Re: hostname deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-02-15 22:20 +0100
Re: hostname Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2018-02-15 20:50 +0100
Re: hostname David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-02-16 00:20 +0100
Re: hostname Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-02-16 01:00 +0100
hostname Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> - 2018-02-18 09:10 +0100
Re: hostname Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2018-02-18 09:50 +0100
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-21 22:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet |
| Message-ID | <vvTsZ-7uo-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #193991 |
Charlie Gibbs wrote: > Now that Trump wants to execute drug dealers, why doesn't he go after > the operators of these sites? They're just as addictive as opioids - or > alcohol, or tobacco... wait, he should be going after them too! there is first amendment - you can't do it and you can't censor it. you need education campaigns and responsible parents, you need an example for the children, but Trump as notorious twitter is definitely a bad one. Sometimes I have the feeling that this list is becoming also a social network :) regards
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-21 22:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) |
| Message-ID | <vvTjj-7qC-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #193978 |
tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > +100 > > To put that on stronger terms -- we'd end up with two and a half > gatekeepers for mail: Google, Hotmail (aka Microsoft) and... who > did I forget? > > The same nightmare we have at the moment with the so-called "social" > networks. > > They are already trying hard (and spam *is* their ally in that). Don't > help them, they are powerful enough as-is. I worked last year on a project at one large ISP to enable DMARC. They however moved away from google and build up cloud for about 18-20mil customers, so definitely many ISPs and also companies will keep using their own mail servers. There are also smaller ISPs or companies that provide email services. I do not think that only few big will be playing around in the future, but what will not be possible, is that anyone could come out with own mail server. OF course you could pay for a static IP, pay for domain name and operate a mail server, however you must do all the work by yourself to protect it from spammers and that's not a so simple task. To me the key issue is always enlightment. If the public gives its personal information for free to the big players, what can you do against it. Education is the only way. The "socials" are a different phenomenon - it is build up on tribal instinct - to belong to something, to be part of that group, to know the latest gossip etc. Mail is replacement for post in classical sense. You don't have to belong to the post, to get a mail from somewhere. But back to DMARC, it indeed works for the big players as smaller one can not easily implement and get the ratings the bigger get, however I have seen also smaller companies use their own mail servers and keep them up to date and score pretty well. I hope it gives you some positive feeling ;-) regards
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-22 00:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet |
| Message-ID | <vvVuN-lY-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194015 |
On 3/21/18 5:15 PM, deloptes wrote: > But back to DMARC, it indeed works for the big players as smaller one can > not easily implement and get the ratings the bigger get, however I have > seen also smaller companies use their own mail servers and keep them up to > date and score pretty well. > > the problem with DMARC is simple - it breaks any kind of retransmission - in particular mailing lists Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-22 09:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet |
| Message-ID | <vw3iF-5AU-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194028 |
Miles Fidelman wrote: > the problem with DMARC is simple - it breaks any kind of retransmission > - in particular mailing lists that's why I don't get the mails delivered to the mailbox or get numerous non deliverable mails from the mail server. nevertheless you will not be able to resent mails soon and perhaps the news group community should react respectively in time and not just state "the problem with DMARC". You know what happens in nature with animals that do not evolve. I am sure there is a way to handle this with DMARC as well. regards
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-22 15:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet |
| Message-ID | <vw8V3-U3-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194040 |
On 3/22/18 3:56 AM, deloptes wrote: > Miles Fidelman wrote: > >> the problem with DMARC is simple - it breaks any kind of retransmission >> - in particular mailing lists > that's why I don't get the mails delivered to the mailbox or get numerous > non deliverable mails from the mail server. > > nevertheless you will not be able to resent mails soon and perhaps the news > group community should react respectively in time and not just state "the > problem with DMARC". > You know what happens in nature with animals that do not evolve. I am sure > there is a way to handle this with DMARC as well. > Well, the list management community HAS been trying to engage with DMARC - the thing is the DMARC folks are not really all that responsive - "not their problem" and it's a standard that's being imposed by fiat, not in the Internet way. There are work-arounds, sort of - the basic one being to set a list manager to have all emails show as coming from the list, not the original author. Makes "reply-to-author" a pain. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-21 21:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) |
| Message-ID | <vvS3T-6qV-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #193969 |
On Wed 21 Mar 2018 at 09:50:15 (+1100), Ben Finney wrote:
> David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> writes:
>
> > I don't understand why a home user would not be using a smarthost.
> > Perhaps we're talking about a different group of people. Why would a
> > home user want to relay mail rather than submit it to a smarthost?
>
> First, note that even if you don't know the reason why someone would
> want to run their own mail server on their own connection, that is no
> argument to arbitrarily deny them the ability to do it.
>
> So, while you're well within your rights to be curious about why, the
> question doesn't demand an answer. Whoever wants to run a mail server on
> their home connection should by default have the right to do so, for any
> reason or no reason, and doesn't need to explain why to anyone.
Nice of you to set up an Aunt Sally to knock down. I'm afraid my post
wasn't a political statement about the freedom of the Internet but a
technical question about the type of person that I only know to call
"home user". This person is the sort who wonders whether to call the
name of their domain "" or, say, home.¹
(That said, thanks for changing the Subject line.)
> As it happens, there are excellent reasons to want to do this. They are
> no less strong now than when doing this was much more common in the
> 1990s and earlier: in order to retain decentralised control, distributed
> throughout the community, of a decentralised and federated communication
> system.
And there are plenty of technical reasons why not everyone wants to do
this, and those have been expressed here when the subject of mail
servers comes up. (Don't bother to ask me for references: I can't
be bothered.)
The discussion evolved along the way (with Brian) to centre on sending
HELO dotlessdomainname
to a mail server, and whether it would be better for them to send
HELO dotcontaining.home
My reasoning has been that someone wondering whether to call their
host foo or foo.home is hardly likely to be seeking to relay mail.
If they send email directly from their host, it is likely they are
submitting emails through one of the recognised submission methods,
and it may be best for them that they do.
As these submission methods involve authentication (I believe), then
I want someone to explain to me why having a dot is better then not
having a dot in deciding whether a submitter is genuine. And
without the politics.
This issue is hardly likely to affect the freedom of the Internet, so
please don't talk about whether I'm "within my rights" to discuss it.
> The news for the past decade (and more) has given frequent reminder of
> why it's important to wrest control of our communications out of the
> hugh, centralised choke-points that currently reign. That by itself is
> reason enough to support and encourage more people running mail servers
> independent of those entities.
>
> The person in question may have additioonal reasons, or separate
> reasons. The point is that email is *designed* and *works best* as a
> decentralised, federated system. We should be asking not “why would
> anyone do this?”, but rather “why have we gone so far in relinquishing
> the ability to do this?”.
>
> And then take active steps to move more toward federated, decentralised
> communication again.
Carry on, London.²
¹This discussion started at about the time (AIUI) that it became
possible to recommend the use of one of ".home", ".corp" or ".mail"
for home users, a topic that has been discussed here many times.
Had I read
https://features.icann.org/addressing-new-gtld-program-applications-corp-home-and-mail
at the time I posted
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2018/02/msg00876.html
I would have adopted the terminology ".home user" to make it clearer
who I'm talking about, but I was unaware that that resolution had
passed. From the question "What, on a home LAN, is that used for?",
I derived the term "home user" as a shorthand. As for msg00876,
I couldn't have been more correct in writing there:
". causing some discussion here."
²For any youngsters out there, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Town_Tonight
Cheers,
David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-21 21:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) |
| Message-ID | <vvSwV-6QX-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194005 |
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 02:53:47PM -0500, David Wright wrote: > HELO dotlessdomainname > HELO dotcontaining.home > > I want someone to explain to me why having a dot is better then not > having a dot in deciding whether a submitter is genuine. And > without the politics. My understanding: the SMTP receiver will use whatever heuristics it finds appropriate to avoid receiving spam. One heuristic that is commonly used is to reject all messages where the HELO doesn't even syntactically qualify as a valid FQDN -- in other words, has no dot in it. Another heuristic that is commonly used is to perform a DNS query on the HELO string, and reject it if it's not a valid FQDN based on DNS. The first heuristic is much less expensive to perform, as it does not involve sending a DNS query and waiting for the response. The test is simply a syntactic scan of the input string that it already has. Of course, a given receiver may choose to perform BOTH tests. For the person who is trying to send legitimate outgoing mail, obviously you don't want your messages to be rejected as spam. So it behooves you to make sure your message complies with not only the applicable standards (SMTP = RFC 2821, etc.), but also with the known practices of potential receivers. Which means, among other things, having a HELO string that won't cause your message to be dropped as probable spam.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe <joe@jretrading.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-21 22:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) |
| Message-ID | <vvSZX-749-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194007 |
On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 16:21:44 -0400 Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 02:53:47PM -0500, David Wright wrote: > > HELO dotlessdomainname > > HELO dotcontaining.home > > > > I want someone to explain to me why having a dot is better then not > > having a dot in deciding whether a submitter is genuine. And > > without the politics. > > My understanding: the SMTP receiver will use whatever heuristics it > finds appropriate to avoid receiving spam. Indeed. Exim4 is fairly easy to configure either way. > > One heuristic that is commonly used is to reject all messages where > the HELO doesn't even syntactically qualify as a valid FQDN -- in > other words, has no dot in it. > > Another heuristic that is commonly used is to perform a DNS query on > the HELO string, and reject it if it's not a valid FQDN based on DNS. > > The first heuristic is much less expensive to perform, as it does not > involve sending a DNS query and waiting for the response. The test > is simply a syntactic scan of the input string that it already has. > I'm willing to do DNS lookups. Both the HELO and the PTR record of the sending IP address need to be resolvable in public DNS for my mail server to accept mail, as does the domain of the 'envelope' sender. The latter weeds out a fair bit of spam. > > For the person who is trying to send legitimate outgoing mail, > obviously you don't want your messages to be rejected as spam. So it > behooves you to make sure your message complies with not only the > applicable standards (SMTP = RFC 2821, etc.), but also with the known > practices of potential receivers. Which means, among other things, > having a HELO string that won't cause your message to be dropped as > probable spam. > I haven't done it recently, but I often used to use a telnet connection to talk manually to many SMTP servers, most of them required a resolvable HELO, but they didn't care if it had any connection with the sender. To minimise typing, I used to use a six-character domain name (there are several) to which I had no rights whatever. I've seen one of my clients' Exchange servers reject a connection from BT, the UK telecoms provider, because one of its Exchange servers was misconfigured to send its own private domain name, with a .local TLD, as its HELO. -- Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-21 22:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) |
| Message-ID | <vvTCF-7zh-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194010 |
Joe wrote: > Indeed. Exim4 is fairly easy to configure either way. yes indeed, it took me only one month to write all the rules required (with irony)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-21 22:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname) |
| Message-ID | <vvTCF-7zh-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194007 |
Greg Wooledge wrote: > My understanding: the SMTP receiver will use whatever heuristics it > finds appropriate to avoid receiving spam. > > One heuristic that is commonly used is to reject all messages where > the HELO doesn't even syntactically qualify as a valid FQDN -- in other > words, has no dot in it. > > Another heuristic that is commonly used is to perform a DNS query on > the HELO string, and reject it if it's not a valid FQDN based on DNS. true and as I mentioned in one previous reply since couple of years every one is implementing DMARC and SPF. In near feature mails that are not signed, will not be processed/accepted or will score bad and be treated as spam.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-21 23:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet |
| Message-ID | <vvU5I-81D-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194007 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 22/03/18 09:21, Greg Wooledge wrote: > One heuristic that is commonly used is to reject all messages where > the HELO doesn't even syntactically qualify as a valid FQDN -- in other > words, has no dot in it. I often see this alluded to, but struggle to find evidence - why shouldn't there be a postmaster@com, for example? Or perhaps cic@mil? Is there any reason you can't have an A, MX or any other record on a TLD? Or even the root, though I concede that abuse@. would be easier to understand than just abuse@ [attempts to end sentence without a dot] Presumably there's an RFC that covers this somewhere, but I can't find it. I want richard@nz :-) Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-22 01:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet |
| Message-ID | <vvW7v-Rk-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194025 |
Richard Hector wrote: > This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) > --74MY4YRdzqYrpY64nFoecBsxLWqTbYeLg > Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="W7QULzTEwHyPVYL9CjAwUAkHYtJwwuUvr"; > protected-headers="v1" > From: Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org > Message-ID: <3d20dce8-38ee-dbac-e8a5-c13b79f84585@walnut.gen.nz> > Subject: Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet > References: <20180215143806.vii235crrmr4to3m@eeg.ccf.org> > <slrnp8bcsg.ask.dan@xps-linux.djph.net> > <1519043283.383068.1275644336.01C716EA@webmail.messagingengine.com> > <20180219162356.GA4712@alum> > <19022018180243.2ced26b8fba1@desktop.copernicus.org.uk> > <20180222175818.GA12408@alum> > <23022018142458.08644849f47c@desktop.copernicus.org.uk> > <20180320220747.GA14927@alum> <85muz2z7iw.fsf_-_@benfinney.id.au> > <20180321195347.GD7863@alum> <20180321202144.3oxfe5puynsf5von@eeg.ccf.org> > In-Reply-To: <20180321202144.3oxfe5puynsf5von@eeg.ccf.org> > > --W7QULzTEwHyPVYL9CjAwUAkHYtJwwuUvr > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > Content-Language: en-US > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > On 22/03/18 09:21, Greg Wooledge wrote: >> One heuristic that is commonly used is to reject all messages where >> the HELO doesn't even syntactically qualify as a valid FQDN -- in other= > >> words, has no dot in it. > > I often see this alluded to, but struggle to find evidence - why > shouldn't there be a postmaster@com, for example? Or perhaps cic@mil? > > Is there any reason you can't have an A, MX or any other record on a > TLD? Or even the root, though I concede that abuse@. would be easier to > understand than just abuse@ [attempts to end sentence without a dot] It is my understanding that the TLDs are not themselves valid domains. That is, a valid domain is by definition "domain.tld". I could be entirely wrong though. -- |_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947 |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-22 13:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet |
| Message-ID | <vw7mh-8uM-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194032 |
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:04:07AM -0000, Dan Purgert wrote:
> Richard Hector wrote:
> > I often see this alluded to, but struggle to find evidence - why
> > shouldn't there be a postmaster@com, for example? Or perhaps cic@mil?
>
> It is my understanding that the TLDs are not themselves valid domains.
> That is, a valid domain is by definition "domain.tld".
>
> I could be entirely wrong though.
>From <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fully_qualified_domain_name>:
A fully qualified domain name (FQDN), sometimes also referred to as
an absolute domain name,[1] is a domain name that specifies its exact
location in the tree hierarchy of the Domain Name System (DNS). It
specifies all domain levels, including at least a second-level domain
and a top-level domain.[2]
Footnote [2]:
April N. Marine; Joyce K. Reynolds; Gary Scott Malkin (March 1994).
"Questions About the Domain Name System". Answers to Commonly asked
"New Internet User" Questions. IETF. sec. 5. doi:10.17487/RFC1594. RFC
1594. Retrieved 29 April 2013. "If you think of the DNS as a
tree-structure with each node having its own label, a fully qualified
domain name for a specific node would be its label followed by the
labels of all the other nodes between it and the root of the tree."
RFC 1594 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1594>:
A Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) is a domain name that includes all
higher level domains relevant to the entity named. If you think of the
DNS as a tree-structure with each node having its own label, a Fully
Qualified Domain Name for a specific node would be its label followed by
the labels of all the other nodes between it and the root of the tree.
For example, for a host, a FQDN would include the string that identifies
the particular host, plus all domains of which the host is a part up
to and including the top-level domain (the root domain is always null).
Now, that's from 1994, and it's an "Informational" RFC ("does not specify
an Internet standard of any kind"), but that's probably as authoritative
as you'll get.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-22 23:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet |
| Message-ID | <vwgzg-67f-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194051 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 23/03/18 01:17, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:04:07AM -0000, Dan Purgert wrote:
>> Richard Hector wrote:
>>> I often see this alluded to, but struggle to find evidence - why
>>> shouldn't there be a postmaster@com, for example? Or perhaps cic@mil?
>>
>> It is my understanding that the TLDs are not themselves valid domains.
>> That is, a valid domain is by definition "domain.tld".
>>
>> I could be entirely wrong though.
>
>>From <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fully_qualified_domain_name>:
>
> A fully qualified domain name (FQDN), sometimes also referred to as
> an absolute domain name,[1] is a domain name that specifies its exact
> location in the tree hierarchy of the Domain Name System (DNS). It
> specifies all domain levels, including at least a second-level domain
> and a top-level domain.[2]
>
> Footnote [2]:
>
> April N. Marine; Joyce K. Reynolds; Gary Scott Malkin (March 1994).
> "Questions About the Domain Name System". Answers to Commonly asked
> "New Internet User" Questions. IETF. sec. 5. doi:10.17487/RFC1594. RFC
> 1594. Retrieved 29 April 2013. "If you think of the DNS as a
> tree-structure with each node having its own label, a fully qualified
> domain name for a specific node would be its label followed by the
> labels of all the other nodes between it and the root of the tree."
>
> RFC 1594 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1594>:
>
> A Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) is a domain name that includes all
> higher level domains relevant to the entity named. If you think of the
> DNS as a tree-structure with each node having its own label, a Fully
> Qualified Domain Name for a specific node would be its label followed by
> the labels of all the other nodes between it and the root of the tree.
> For example, for a host, a FQDN would include the string that identifies
> the particular host, plus all domains of which the host is a part up
> to and including the top-level domain (the root domain is always null).
>
>
> Now, that's from 1994, and it's an "Informational" RFC ("does not specify
> an Internet standard of any kind"), but that's probably as authoritative
> as you'll get.
>
Thanks - Having read that paragraph of the RFC, it doesn't seem to
require any particular number of levels, only that all that exist are
present.
Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-22 23:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet |
| Message-ID | <vwhbY-6ln-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194060 |
Richard Hector wrote: > On 23/03/18 01:17, Greg Wooledge wrote: >> [...] >> RFC 1594 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1594>: A Fully Qualified >> Domain Name (FQDN) is a domain name that includes all higher level >> domains relevant to the entity named. If you think of the DNS as a >> tree-structure with each node having its own label, a Fully Qualified >> Domain Name for a specific node would be its label followed by the >> labels of all the other nodes between it and the root of the tree. >> >> For example, for a host, a FQDN would include the string that >> identifies the particular host, plus all domains of which the host is >> a part up to and including the top-level domain (the root domain is >> always null). > > Thanks - Having read that paragraph of the RFC, it doesn't seem to > require any particular number of levels, only that all that exist are > present. > > Richard It requires two "levels" 1. the TLD itself 2. the named host Therefore, "com." (that is, the TLD 'com') is not a valid FQDN. However, "a.com." (that is, the host 'a' on the 'com' TLD) is a valid FQDN. NOTE -> the trailing dot is only required in DNS entries, general internet usage (email, [web|ftp|nntp|etc] services, etc.) do not require it to be used (although, a quick test to slashdot, google, and sparkfun; all three resolved properly with the trailing dot included). -- |_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947 |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-23 00:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet |
| Message-ID | <vwhEZ-6Kq-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194062 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 23/03/18 11:31, Dan Purgert wrote: > Richard Hector wrote: >> On 23/03/18 01:17, Greg Wooledge wrote: >>> [...] >>> RFC 1594 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1594>: A Fully Qualified >>> Domain Name (FQDN) is a domain name that includes all higher level >>> domains relevant to the entity named. If you think of the DNS as a >>> tree-structure with each node having its own label, a Fully Qualified >>> Domain Name for a specific node would be its label followed by the >>> labels of all the other nodes between it and the root of the tree. >>> >>> For example, for a host, a FQDN would include the string that >>> identifies the particular host, plus all domains of which the host is >>> a part up to and including the top-level domain (the root domain is >>> always null). >> >> Thanks - Having read that paragraph of the RFC, it doesn't seem to >> require any particular number of levels, only that all that exist are >> present. >> >> Richard > > It requires two "levels" > > 1. the TLD itself > 2. the named host > > Therefore, "com." (that is, the TLD 'com') is not a valid FQDN. However, > "a.com." (that is, the host 'a' on the 'com' TLD) is a valid FQDN. That's not what I see in the RFC. The DNS only seems to care about a tree of nodes with labels, not whether a particular node represents a host or a network or something else. So if the node in question has the label "com", and "All the other nodes" consist of just the root domain (with the null label), that should be sufficient. Even just the null label followed by (empty list) should be enough. What you say may well be what was intended, but it doesn't seem specific to me. I realise practical considerations may be different, but I don't see any more requirement than that in that RFC. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-23 02:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet |
| Message-ID | <vwjns-7T0-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194064 |
Richard Hector wrote:
> This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
> --xzXHS3VVn10PcTmOrOWirzNfIdRO84rgl
> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Wlh5om7AxfFwwkNI2fav87yEOngrEELuZ";
> protected-headers="v1"
> From: Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz>
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Message-ID: <70d1e443-073a-16d7-f14c-89d5d2be1fc4@walnut.gen.nz>
> Subject: Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet
> References: <20180219162356.GA4712@alum>
> <19022018180243.2ced26b8fba1@desktop.copernicus.org.uk>
> <20180222175818.GA12408@alum>
> <23022018142458.08644849f47c@desktop.copernicus.org.uk>
> <20180320220747.GA14927@alum> <85muz2z7iw.fsf_-_@benfinney.id.au>
> <20180321195347.GD7863@alum> <20180321202144.3oxfe5puynsf5von@eeg.ccf.org>
> <3d20dce8-38ee-dbac-e8a5-c13b79f84585@walnut.gen.nz>
> <slrnpb5snn.num.dan@xps-linux.djph.net>
> <20180322121746.w4yx77mpmwlmfska@eeg.ccf.org>
> <f016a749-b4cc-95c8-9f25-2d913142e08a@walnut.gen.nz>
> <slrnpb8bm0.num.dan@xps-linux.djph.net>
> In-Reply-To: <slrnpb8bm0.num.dan@xps-linux.djph.net>
>
> --Wlh5om7AxfFwwkNI2fav87yEOngrEELuZ
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> Content-Language: en-US
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> On 23/03/18 11:31, Dan Purgert wrote:
>> Richard Hector wrote:
>>> On 23/03/18 01:17, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> RFC 1594 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1594>: A Fully Qualified
>>>> Domain Name (FQDN) is a domain name that includes all higher level
>>>> domains relevant to the entity named. If you think of the DNS as a
>>>> tree-structure with each node having its own label, a Fully Qualified=
>
>>>> Domain Name for a specific node would be its label followed by the
>>>> labels of all the other nodes between it and the root of the tree.
>>>>
>>>> For example, for a host, a FQDN would include the string that
>>>> identifies the particular host, plus all domains of which the host is=
>
>>>> a part up to and including the top-level domain (the root domain is
>>>> always null).
>>>
>>> Thanks - Having read that paragraph of the RFC, it doesn't seem to
>>> require any particular number of levels, only that all that exist are
>>> present.
>>>
>>> Richard
>>=20
>> It requires two "levels"
>>=20
>> 1. the TLD itself
>> 2. the named host
>>=20
>> Therefore, "com." (that is, the TLD 'com') is not a valid FQDN. However=
> ,
>> "a.com." (that is, the host 'a' on the 'com' TLD) is a valid FQDN.
>
> That's not what I see in the RFC. The DNS only seems to care about a
> tree of nodes with labels, not whether a particular node represents a
> host or a network or something else. So if the node in question has the
> label "com", and "All the other nodes" consist of just the root domain
> (with the null label), that should be sufficient. Even just the null
> label followed by (empty list) should be enough. What you say may well
> be what was intended, but it doesn't seem specific to me.
You seem to be considering a "node" as representing more than it
actually is -- a node cannot simultaneously be "a named entity" AND ALSO
a grouping.
I suppose we can consider a FQDN to be somewhat like a mailing address:
"country" is the root (though unlike DNS, it's "optional" information -
if not specified "the country of origin" is assumed)
"zipcode" is the TLD
"state" is the domain
"city" is a subdomain
"street address" is another subdomain
"addressed individual" is the entity.
This isn't a valid address:
USA
Nor is anything up to and including
123 Main Street
Anytown, Anystate 90210
Which is why all of your bulk mail is sent to something like
Current Resident
your_address
your_city, your_state zipcode
Likewise, "com" is not a FQDN, since it doesn't name a specific entity
that is part of the "com" top-level domain.
On the other hand, "lists.debian.org" is fully qualified for the
specific host "lists" of the "debian" domain of the "org" TLD. However,
"lists.debian" is not a FQDN, as it does not ultimately point to a valid
TLD.
--
|_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-23 04:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet |
| Message-ID | <vwl5T-j4-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194066 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 23/03/18 13:55, Dan Purgert wrote: > Richard Hector wrote: >> >> On 23/03/18 11:31, Dan Purgert wrote: >>> Richard Hector wrote: >>>> On 23/03/18 01:17, Greg Wooledge wrote: >>>>> [...] >>>>> RFC 1594 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1594>: A Fully Qualified >>>>> Domain Name (FQDN) is a domain name that includes all higher level >>>>> domains relevant to the entity named. If you think of the DNS as a >>>>> tree-structure with each node having its own label, a Fully Qualified= >> >>>>> Domain Name for a specific node would be its label followed by the >>>>> labels of all the other nodes between it and the root of the tree. >>>>> >>>>> For example, for a host, a FQDN would include the string that >>>>> identifies the particular host, plus all domains of which the host is= >> >>>>> a part up to and including the top-level domain (the root domain is >>>>> always null). >>>> >>>> Thanks - Having read that paragraph of the RFC, it doesn't seem to >>>> require any particular number of levels, only that all that exist are >>>> present. >>>> >>>> Richard >>> =20 >>> It requires two "levels" >>> =20 >>> 1. the TLD itself >>> 2. the named host >>> =20 >>> Therefore, "com." (that is, the TLD 'com') is not a valid FQDN. However= >> , >>> "a.com." (that is, the host 'a' on the 'com' TLD) is a valid FQDN. >> >> That's not what I see in the RFC. The DNS only seems to care about a >> tree of nodes with labels, not whether a particular node represents a >> host or a network or something else. So if the node in question has the >> label "com", and "All the other nodes" consist of just the root domain >> (with the null label), that should be sufficient. Even just the null >> label followed by (empty list) should be enough. What you say may well >> be what was intended, but it doesn't seem specific to me. > > You seem to be considering a "node" as representing more than it > actually is -- a node cannot simultaneously be "a named entity" AND ALSO > a grouping. A node is a point in a tree. It has a (possibly null) label, and may or may not represent a host. Fair? > I suppose we can consider a FQDN to be somewhat like a mailing address: > > "country" is the root (though unlike DNS, it's "optional" information - > if not specified "the country of origin" is assumed) > "zipcode" is the TLD > "state" is the domain > "city" is a subdomain > "street address" is another subdomain > "addressed individual" is the entity. I wouldn't necessarily count the addressed individual as part of the address. > This isn't a valid address: > > USA Probably not, unless the USPS or whoever is responsible decides it is, which they could. > Nor is anything up to and including > > 123 Main Street > Anytown, Anystate 90210 I would say that is (as long as it exists), and would assume mail would arrive there. What happens after that is up to whoever clears the mailbox. But obviously an email address requires a local part. > Likewise, "com" is not a FQDN, since it doesn't name a specific entity > that is part of the "com" top-level domain. It currently doesn't. But that's just because there's none of the common 'entity' records. If the admin added an A record or an MX record or something, it would. > On the other hand, "lists.debian.org" is fully qualified for the > specific host "lists" of the "debian" domain of the "org" TLD. However, > "lists.debian" is not a FQDN, as it does not ultimately point to a valid > TLD. Agreed (currently) Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-23 02:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet |
| Message-ID | <vwk0a-85b-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194064 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 3/22/18 7:14 PM, Richard Hector wrote:
> On 23/03/18 11:31, Dan Purgert wrote:
>> Richard Hector wrote:
>>> On 23/03/18 01:17, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> RFC 1594 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1594>: A Fully Qualified
>>>> Domain Name (FQDN) is a domain name that includes all higher level
>>>> domains relevant to the entity named. If you think of the DNS as a
>>>> tree-structure with each node having its own label, a Fully Qualified
>>>> Domain Name for a specific node would be its label followed by the
>>>> labels of all the other nodes between it and the root of the tree.
>>>>
>>>> For example, for a host, a FQDN would include the string that
>>>> identifies the particular host, plus all domains of which the host is
>>>> a part up to and including the top-level domain (the root domain is
>>>> always null).
>>> Thanks - Having read that paragraph of the RFC, it doesn't seem to
>>> require any particular number of levels, only that all that exist are
>>> present.
>>>
>>> Richard
>> It requires two "levels"
>>
>> 1. the TLD itself
>> 2. the named host
>>
>> Therefore, "com." (that is, the TLD 'com') is not a valid FQDN. However,
>> "a.com." (that is, the host 'a' on the 'com' TLD) is a valid FQDN.
> That's not what I see in the RFC. The DNS only seems to care about a
> tree of nodes with labels, not whether a particular node represents a
> host or a network or something else. So if the node in question has the
> label "com", and "All the other nodes" consist of just the root domain
> (with the null label), that should be sufficient. Even just the null
> label followed by (empty list) should be enough. What you say may well
> be what was intended, but it doesn't seem specific to me.
>
> I realise practical considerations may be different, but I don't see any
> more requirement than that in that RFC.
>
Christ, why are we still discussing this. (And what does it have to do
with the original question about "Federated, decentralised communication
on the internet?" ... which was originally a question about how
"hostname" is used by Debian) But...
An FQDN defines the location of an entity in the DNS tree. For a host -
which is what we've been discussing, and generally what one is talking
about when talking about FQDN's an FQDN consists of both a hostname AND
a domain name. (Again, in the Linux context, one is generally making
the distinction between "hostname," "network name," and "fully qualified
domain name" - often in the context of setting up a machine, or the
"hostname" and "dnsdomainname" commands, "hostname --fqdn", or the files
where such information is stored.)
When it comes to hosts, it is generally understood that the FQDN
consists of both the hostname and domainname, and an awful lot of
protocol specs cite (and quote) https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1983 -
the "Internet Users' Glossary" which says...
Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN)
The FQDN is the full name of a system, rather than just its
hostname. For example, "venera" is a hostname and
"venera.isi.edu" is an FQDN. See also: hostname, Domain Name
System.
Now, arguably, "." is an FQDN specifying the very top of the DNS tree,
and "com" (or "com.") specifies the top of the com domain - but who
really cares. Particularly since the whole discussion started around
fully qualified HOST names.
Another common definition of an FQDN is that it uniquely identifies a
node in the DNS tree. By that view "." is the FQDN for the top of the
tree, and "com" (or "com." is the top of the .com domain - but who
really cares, except for pedantic purposes. There aren't any
nameservers that resolve "." or "com" or "mil" - implying that there are
no records in the system for them (maybe there should be, but that's
another question for another day).
Miles Fidelman
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-23 04:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet |
| Message-ID | <vwlfA-Db-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #194068 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 23/03/18 14:44, Miles Fidelman wrote: > Christ, Richard :-) > why are we still discussing this. (And what does it have to do > with the original question about "Federated, decentralised communication > on the internet?" ... which was originally a question about how > "hostname" is used by Debian) Agreed. Apologies for the deviation. > But... > > An FQDN defines the location of an entity in the DNS tree. For a host - > which is what we've been discussing, and generally what one is talking > about when talking about FQDN's an FQDN consists of both a hostname AND > a domain name. (Again, in the Linux context, one is generally making > the distinction between "hostname," "network name," and "fully qualified > domain name" - often in the context of setting up a machine, or the > "hostname" and "dnsdomainname" commands, "hostname --fqdn", or the files > where such information is stored.) > > When it comes to hosts, it is generally understood that the FQDN > consists of both the hostname and domainname, and an awful lot of > protocol specs cite (and quote) https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1983 - > the "Internet Users' Glossary" which says... > > Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) > The FQDN is the full name of a system, rather than just its > hostname. For example, "venera" is a hostname and > "venera.isi.edu" is an FQDN. See also: hostname, Domain Name > System. Another reference, thanks. Still not specific. > Now, arguably, "." is an FQDN specifying the very top of the DNS tree, > and "com" (or "com.") specifies the top of the com domain - but who > really cares. Particularly since the whole discussion started around > fully qualified HOST names. This is my point. And AFAIK DNS would happily accept an A record for com, and probably . too. (I haven't tried it in BIND; I should ...) > Another common definition of an FQDN is that it uniquely identifies a > node in the DNS tree. By that view "." is the FQDN for the top of the > tree, and "com" (or "com." is the top of the .com domain - but who > really cares, except for pedantic purposes. When talking about specs and RFCs (which maybe only I was), surely pedantic purposes are what it's all about? > There aren't any > nameservers that resolve "." or "com" or "mil" - implying that there are > no records in the system for them (maybe there should be, but that's > another question for another day). There might not be A, AAAA or MX records, but there are certainly servers, and they serve at least SOA and NS (and RRSIG) records for all 3 of those. Again, apologies for the aside that got a bit carried away. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web