Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: valid_hostname chokes on trailing dot

Expand Messages
  • Chad Whitacre
    Happy to if you point me to it. I m not an expert. chad
    Message 1 of 20 , Oct 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Happy to if you point me to it. I'm not an expert.


      chad


      Wietse Venema wrote:
      > Chad Whitacre:
      >> Greetings,
      >>
      >> In src/util/valid_hostname.c (version 2.5.5), valid_hostname
      >> gives a "misplaced delimiter" warning if the hostname ends in a
      >> trailing dot. Since a trailing dot is technically part of a FQDN,
      >> I suggest that valid_hostname allow them. Patch attached.
      >
      > Please cite the relevant section of the relevant RFC.
      >
      > Wietse
      >
    • Chad Whitacre
      ... Is this the right place? https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321#section-2.3.5 chad
      Message 2 of 20 , Oct 1, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        >> Please cite the relevant section of the relevant RFC.
        > Happy to if you point me to it. I'm not an expert.

        Is this the right place?

        https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321#section-2.3.5



        chad
      • John Peach
        On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:40:57 -0400 ... If it is, it does not back up your assertion that a trailing dot is part of the FQDN. -- John
        Message 3 of 20 , Oct 1, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:40:57 -0400
          Chad Whitacre <chad@...> wrote:

          > >> Please cite the relevant section of the relevant RFC.
          > > Happy to if you point me to it. I'm not an expert.
          >
          > Is this the right place?
          >
          > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321#section-2.3.5
          >

          If it is, it does not back up your assertion that a trailing dot is
          part of the FQDN.


          --
          John
        • Wietse Venema
          ... Sorry, that is backwards. If you want to correct Postfix behavior, then you need to provide supporting documentation that Postfix is in error. So please
          Message 4 of 20 , Oct 1, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Chad Whitacre:
            > Greetings,
            >
            > In src/util/valid_hostname.c (version 2.5.5), valid_hostname
            > gives a "misplaced delimiter" warning if the hostname ends in a
            > trailing dot. Since a trailing dot is technically part of a FQDN,
            > I suggest that valid_hostname allow them. Patch attached.

            Wietse:
            > > Please cite the relevant section of the relevant RFC.

            Chad Whitacre:
            > Happy to if you point me to it. I'm not an expert.

            Sorry, that is backwards.

            If you want to "correct" Postfix behavior, then you need to provide
            supporting documentation that Postfix is in error.

            So please point out the relevant sections of email related RFCs,
            otherwise I suggest that you refrain from posting "corrections".

            Wietse
          • Chad Whitacre
            John, ... Right, I stopped asserting that when Wietse and Noel told me that FQDN means something different for SMTP than for DNS. The question (I thought) was
            Message 5 of 20 , Oct 1, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              John,

              > If it is, it does not back up your assertion that a trailing
              > dot is part of the FQDN.

              Right, I stopped asserting that when Wietse and Noel told me that
              FQDN means something different for SMTP than for DNS. The
              question (I thought) was what to point to from Wikipedia.


              chad



              John Peach wrote:
              >
              > On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:40:57 -0400
              > Chad Whitacre <chad@...> wrote:
              >
              >> >> Please cite the relevant section of the relevant RFC.
              >> > Happy to if you point me to it. I'm not an expert.
              >>
              >> Is this the right place?
              >>
              >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321#section-2.3.5
              >>
              >
              > If it is, it does not back up your assertion that a trailing dot is
              > part of the FQDN.
              >
              >
            • Wietse Venema
              ... Does the text say SEPARATED by dots or TERMINATED by dot ? Wietse
              Message 6 of 20 , Oct 1, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                Chad Whitacre:
                > Is this the right place?
                >
                > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321#section-2.3.5

                Does the text say "SEPARATED by dots" or "TERMINATED by dot"?

                Wietse
              • Chad Whitacre
                Wietse, ... We ve got a misunderstanding. I accept your statement that FQDN means something different in SMTP than DNS. I m not trying to correct Postfix
                Message 7 of 20 , Oct 1, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Wietse,

                  > Sorry, that is backwards.
                  >
                  > If you want to "correct" Postfix behavior, then you need to
                  > provide supporting documentation that Postfix is in error.
                  >
                  > So please point out the relevant sections of email related
                  > RFCs, otherwise I suggest that you refrain from posting
                  > "corrections".

                  We've got a misunderstanding. I accept your statement that FQDN
                  means something different in SMTP than DNS. I'm not trying to
                  correct Postfix behavior, I'm trying to find the best reference
                  to add to Wikipedia's article on FQDNs. If I'm not mistaken, 5321
                  2.3.5 is this reference (and, coincidentally, it appears that
                  5321 is being published as we speak). Yes?



                  chad
                • Noel Jones
                  ... Yes, that looks like an appropriate link. it s certainly a better reference than this wandering thread... -- Noel Jones
                  Message 8 of 20 , Oct 1, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Chad Whitacre wrote:
                    > Wietse,
                    >
                    > > Sorry, that is backwards.
                    > >
                    > > If you want to "correct" Postfix behavior, then you need to
                    > > provide supporting documentation that Postfix is in error.
                    > >
                    > > So please point out the relevant sections of email related
                    > > RFCs, otherwise I suggest that you refrain from posting
                    > > "corrections".
                    >
                    > We've got a misunderstanding. I accept your statement that FQDN means
                    > something different in SMTP than DNS. I'm not trying to correct Postfix
                    > behavior, I'm trying to find the best reference to add to Wikipedia's
                    > article on FQDNs. If I'm not mistaken, 5321 2.3.5 is this reference
                    > (and, coincidentally, it appears that 5321 is being published as we
                    > speak). Yes?
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > chad


                    Yes, that looks like an appropriate link.
                    it's certainly a better reference than this wandering thread...

                    --
                    Noel Jones
                  • Wietse Venema
                    ... A mis-understanding as in posting a patch that corrects Postfix behavior without adequate justification. According to RFC 5312 section 2.3.5, SMTP uses
                    Message 9 of 20 , Oct 1, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Chad Whitacre:
                      > Wietse,
                      >
                      > > Sorry, that is backwards.
                      > >
                      > > If you want to "correct" Postfix behavior, then you need to
                      > > provide supporting documentation that Postfix is in error.
                      > >
                      > > So please point out the relevant sections of email related
                      > > RFCs, otherwise I suggest that you refrain from posting
                      > > "corrections".
                      >
                      > We've got a misunderstanding. I accept your statement that FQDN
                      > means something different in SMTP than DNS. I'm not trying to
                      > correct Postfix behavior, I'm trying to find the best reference
                      > to add to Wikipedia's article on FQDNs. If I'm not mistaken, 5321
                      > 2.3.5 is this reference (and, coincidentally, it appears that
                      > 5321 is being published as we speak). Yes?

                      A mis-understanding as in posting a patch that "corrects" Postfix
                      behavior without adequate justification.

                      According to RFC 5312 section 2.3.5, SMTP uses the dot as SEPARATOR
                      not TERMINATOR in domain names.

                      Wietse
                    • mouss
                      ... Does DNS even define a hostname ? My understanding is that this is a natural term, not a technically defined one (after all, on many systems, the
                      Message 10 of 20 , Oct 1, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Noel Jones wrote:
                        > Welcome to postfix!
                        >
                        > Valid hostnames in mail are not the same as valid DNS hostnames. Mail
                        > hostnames never end with a dot.

                        Does DNS even define a "hostname"? My understanding is that this is a
                        "natural" term, not a technically defined one (after all, on many
                        systems, the "hostname" is not FQDN, et names like "foo_bar" are ok,
                        eventhough they can't be used as "mail" hostnames).

                        >
                        > The current behavior is correct and won't be changed.
                        >
                        > but thanks for your willingness to help and taking the effort to supply
                        > a patch.
                        >
                      • Chad Whitacre
                        Wietse, ... o I raised a legitimate issue. SMTP s use of FQDN is not widely known. Afaict, it was not even formally defined until RFC 5321 was published
                        Message 11 of 20 , Oct 1, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Wietse,

                          > A mis-understanding as in posting a patch that "corrects"
                          > Postfix behavior without adequate justification.
                          >
                          > According to RFC 5312 section 2.3.5, SMTP uses the dot as
                          > SEPARATOR not TERMINATOR in domain names.

                          o I raised a legitimate issue. SMTP's use of "FQDN" is not
                          widely known. Afaict, it was not even formally defined until
                          RFC 5321 was published today--during our conversation.

                          o I provided a patch.

                          o I apologized quickly for calling this behavior a bug.

                          o I never used the word "corrects" or otherwise implied that
                          Postfix has it wrong.

                          o I accepted your and Noel's clarifications about the use of
                          "FQDN" in SMTP.

                          o I followed your advice in searching the IETF-SMTP list for
                          more info.

                          o I updated the Wikipedia article on FQDN's accordingly.

                          o Here was my misunderstanding: I thought you posted the
                          message about RFCs 5321 and 5322, and were asking me to
                          cite these in the Wikipedia article. My fault, sorry.

                          o I asked for help in finding the specific reference.

                          o I found the reference myself.

                          o I updated Wikipedia again.


                          I'm human, I make mistakes, and I hope I apologize for them. But
                          I'm not an idiot and I'm not malicious. I'm on your side. Don't
                          you think you could lighten up a little?



                          chad




                          Wietse Venema wrote:
                          > Chad Whitacre:
                          >> Wietse,
                          >>
                          >> > Sorry, that is backwards.
                          >> >
                          >> > If you want to "correct" Postfix behavior, then you need to
                          >> > provide supporting documentation that Postfix is in error.
                          >> >
                          >> > So please point out the relevant sections of email related
                          >> > RFCs, otherwise I suggest that you refrain from posting
                          >> > "corrections".
                          >>
                          >> We've got a misunderstanding. I accept your statement that FQDN
                          >> means something different in SMTP than DNS. I'm not trying to
                          >> correct Postfix behavior, I'm trying to find the best reference
                          >> to add to Wikipedia's article on FQDNs. If I'm not mistaken, 5321
                          >> 2.3.5 is this reference (and, coincidentally, it appears that
                          >> 5321 is being published as we speak). Yes?
                          >
                          > A mis-understanding as in posting a patch that "corrects" Postfix
                          > behavior without adequate justification.
                          >
                          > According to RFC 5312 section 2.3.5, SMTP uses the dot as SEPARATOR
                          > not TERMINATOR in domain names.
                          >
                          > Wietse
                          >
                        • Noel Jones
                          ... An interesting observation. Yes, I believe the dozens of DNS related RFCs mostly talk about domain name (aka. FQDN) and host address (referring to
                          Message 12 of 20 , Oct 1, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            mouss wrote:
                            > Noel Jones wrote:
                            >> Welcome to postfix!
                            >>
                            >> Valid hostnames in mail are not the same as valid DNS hostnames.
                            >> Mail hostnames never end with a dot.
                            >
                            > Does DNS even define a "hostname"? My understanding is that this is a
                            > "natural" term, not a technically defined one (after all, on many
                            > systems, the "hostname" is not FQDN, et names like "foo_bar" are ok,
                            > eventhough they can't be used as "mail" hostnames).

                            An interesting observation. Yes, I believe the dozens of DNS
                            related RFCs mostly talk about "domain name" (aka. FQDN) and
                            "host address" (referring to the IP) rather than "hostname",
                            but this is getting sufficiently OT that I don't really care.

                            --
                            Noel Jones
                          • mouss
                            ... Actually 5321 didn t change the definition of helo (and even 2821 didn t really change it). ... that s nice and constructive. ... sure, but it can t be
                            Message 13 of 20 , Oct 1, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Chad Whitacre wrote:
                              > Wietse,
                              >
                              > > A mis-understanding as in posting a patch that "corrects"
                              > > Postfix behavior without adequate justification.
                              > >
                              > > According to RFC 5312 section 2.3.5, SMTP uses the dot as
                              > > SEPARATOR not TERMINATOR in domain names.
                              >
                              > o I raised a legitimate issue. SMTP's use of "FQDN" is not
                              > widely known. Afaict, it was not even formally defined until
                              > RFC 5321 was published today--during our conversation.
                              >

                              Actually 5321 didn't change the definition of helo (and even 2821 didn't
                              really change it).

                              > o I provided a patch.

                              that's nice and constructive.

                              >
                              > o I apologized quickly for calling this behavior a bug.

                              sure, but it can't be removed from the history file ;-p

                              >
                              > o I never used the word "corrects" or otherwise implied that
                              > Postfix has it wrong.
                              >
                              > o I accepted your and Noel's clarifications about the use of
                              > "FQDN" in SMTP.
                              >
                              > o I followed your advice in searching the IETF-SMTP list for
                              > more info.

                              do you mix mail from me and mail from Wietse?

                              >
                              > o I updated the Wikipedia article on FQDN's accordingly.
                              >
                              > o Here was my misunderstanding: I thought you posted the
                              > message about RFCs 5321 and 5322, and were asking me to
                              > cite these in the Wikipedia article. My fault, sorry.
                              >
                              > o I asked for help in finding the specific reference.
                              >
                              > o I found the reference myself.
                              >
                              > o I updated Wikipedia again.
                              >
                              >
                              > I'm human, I make mistakes, and I hope I apologize for them. But I'm not
                              > an idiot and I'm not malicious. I'm on your side. Don't you think you
                              > could lighten up a little?

                              don't be upset by the "style". the trailing dot thing has already been
                              debated here a long time ago. so bringing it again does annoy those who
                              have seen the old thread. While you're not required to know all the
                              posts and discussions that happened here, don't be surprised if the
                              responses you get aren't as "smooth" as you would like. but there's no
                              hate or animosity.

                              Anyway, as Noel said, "thanks for your willingness to help...".
                            • Wietse Venema
                              ... I am enlighted, but this does not always come across in my short responses. Wietse
                              Message 14 of 20 , Oct 1, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Chad Whitacre:
                                > Wietse,
                                >
                                > > A mis-understanding as in posting a patch that "corrects"
                                > > Postfix behavior without adequate justification.
                                > >
                                > > According to RFC 5312 section 2.3.5, SMTP uses the dot as
                                > > SEPARATOR not TERMINATOR in domain names.
                                >
                                > o I raised a legitimate issue. SMTP's use of "FQDN" is not
                                > widely known. Afaict, it was not even formally defined until
                                > RFC 5321 was published today--during our conversation.
                                >
                                > o I provided a patch.
                                >
                                > o I apologized quickly for calling this behavior a bug.
                                >
                                > o I never used the word "corrects" or otherwise implied that
                                > Postfix has it wrong.
                                >
                                > o I accepted your and Noel's clarifications about the use of
                                > "FQDN" in SMTP.
                                >
                                > o I followed your advice in searching the IETF-SMTP list for
                                > more info.
                                >
                                > o I updated the Wikipedia article on FQDN's accordingly.
                                >
                                > o Here was my misunderstanding: I thought you posted the
                                > message about RFCs 5321 and 5322, and were asking me to
                                > cite these in the Wikipedia article. My fault, sorry.
                                >
                                > o I asked for help in finding the specific reference.
                                >
                                > o I found the reference myself.
                                >
                                > o I updated Wikipedia again.
                                >
                                >
                                > I'm human, I make mistakes, and I hope I apologize for them. But
                                > I'm not an idiot and I'm not malicious. I'm on your side. Don't
                                > you think you could lighten up a little?

                                I am enlighted, but this does not always come across in my
                                short responses.

                                Wietse
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.