From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_PASS
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
Received: (qmail 13646 invoked from network); 13 Apr 2020 15:52:48 -0000
Received-SPF:  pass (mother.openwall.net: domain of lists.openwall.com
  designates 195.42.179.200 as permitted sender)
  receiver=inbox.vuxu.org; client-ip=195.42.179.200
  envelope-from=<musl-return-15674-ml=inbox.vuxu.org@lists.openwall.com>
Received: from mother.openwall.net (195.42.179.200)
  by inbox.vuxu.org with UTF8ESMTPZ; 13 Apr 2020 15:52:48 -0000
Received: (qmail 11853 invoked by uid 550); 13 Apr 2020 15:52:46 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-ID: <musl.lists.openwall.com>
Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Received: (qmail 11830 invoked from network); 13 Apr 2020 15:52:46 -0000
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
To: Christian <list-christian@web.de>
Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com
References: <9832107bf742db3145a3960c28cde867f924fe1f.camel@web.de>
	<4524b127ea99b2d1edcd8c91555a9af21e46a9b3.camel@web.de>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 17:52:34 +0200
In-Reply-To: <4524b127ea99b2d1edcd8c91555a9af21e46a9b3.camel@web.de>
	(Christian's message of "Mon, 13 Apr 2020 13:20:49 +0200")
Message-ID: <87imi32xj1.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: Re: [musl] Resolver routines, Postfix DNSSEC troubles - how to check for incompatibilities?

* Christian:

> So Viktor did some digging:
>
> "The comment on line 25:
>
> https://github.com/runtimejs/musl-libc/blob/master/include/resolv.h#L25
>
> is not encouraging.  It suggests that _res is unused. If so, Postfix
> DNS does not work correctly with this C library.  And not just for DANE, since Postfix is also unable to to control RES_DEFNAMES and RES_DNSRCH.

Are these changes to the RES_DEFNAMES and RES_DNSRCH flags really
necessary? Why doesn't Postfix use res_query (or perhaps res_send) as
appropriate?