From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/8792 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: u-uy74@aetey.se Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Re: Would love to see reconsideration for domain and search Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 09:11:35 +0100 Message-ID: <20151027080902.GQ28311@example.net> References: <20151022215608.GA8645@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20151023042720.GE8645@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20151023053108.GG8645@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20151027003021.GN8645@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1445933533 1213 80.91.229.3 (27 Oct 2015 08:12:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 08:12:13 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-8805-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Tue Oct 27 09:12:12 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZqzMS-0007Bn-5r for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 09:12:04 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 3152 invoked by uid 550); 27 Oct 2015 08:12:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 3125 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2015 08:12:01 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fripost.org; h= in-reply-to:content-disposition:content-type:content-type :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:subject:from:from :date:date; s=20140703; t=1445933509; x=1447747910; bh=IXJZOXyU7 Km0eo/tqxdwPxTUh2mpwqLBO5D9o6KSTjY=; b=hsTtCkMTupRERoqZ/YXzWbUet LcAYWUNF0k2ifNFB/vdyfb17JjqhOAEAZ8SdMmVNkxslDKuBuvQQCTaTfxz6CGzk XCELAPL+govKBI7qIL1YXkpqKp2GEf9DlJvpz8z6hSvcjE3JyjtjA/zmhfT67tsp OdOYNxeF9Jn4XjU6Gk= X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at fripost.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151027003021.GN8645@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:8792 Archived-At: On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 08:30:21PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > 1. The default domain used by glibc is not the dns root but rather the > domain portion of the local hostname determined by gethostname(). > Is there any value in duplicating this? Does anyone want/need it? This is an annoying design misfeature - annoying because it reflects and perpetuates confusion between DNS as a global name space (for _interfaces_) and the "nodename" (for the _host_), which came from UUCP with a very different name semantics. It just makes no sense, besides reflecting the many existing "well misunderstood" setups and contributing to creation of new ones. If you ask me, don't ever rely on a certain choice of the nodename to be the same as some record in DNS or resemble it. Too bad, a lot of programs have been written with assumptions "a single network interface [with a single DNS name?] and the host administrator certainly having reused the nodename to be set to one of the dns names of the single interface; let's report anything else as a misconfiguration". The purpose of DNS was hardly understood when it was conceived, dealing with "hosts" while actually it concerns "services" (the port part of the adressing was thus left out of DNS until many years later, having been added with SRV). The misunderstanding are now built in into the traditions and among others in interpreting resolv.conf. Using DNS names as if they'd refer to hardware / OS-instances ("hosts") is in fact a misunderstanding, internet is about interfaces, not hosts, but a way too many people fall for it. IOW, please skip this reliance on gethostname() whenever possible at all. Rune