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

Re: valid_hostname chokes on trailing dot

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.