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

Re: valid_hostname chokes on trailing dot

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.