On Fri, 20 May 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would be written "chto ti hochesh videti" or "chto ti xochesh
videti". Russian transliterations are rather easy to follow since they are
phonetic. We are not counting 3l33t speakers.
When Russian is written using English letters, it is phonetic. The
> And people who write Russian in mobile phone SMS
> will often write things like
>
> 4to ti xo4esh videt?
It would be written "chto ti hochesh videti" or "chto ti xochesh
videti". Russian transliterations are rather easy to follow since they are
phonetic. We are not counting 3l33t speakers.
>
> You know what the constraints are -- no zone local semantics (e.g., case
> folding rules, courtesy H.A.) for a glyph repetoire that in some ranges
> is also a character set, no intermediate tables, no flag day(s) for
apps,
> and so on.
It's sad that one of the constraints isn't for this to
be
At 17:53 -0400 5/19/05, Eric A. Hall wrote:
Edward Lewis wrote:
It's true that the xn-- convention isn't the best way to encode
IDN's, but it has proven to be the optimal one in design (at least).
It's the necessary minimum for compatibilty purposes, but not anywhere
near the optimal design.
More
Edward Lewis wrote:
> It's true that the xn-- convention isn't the best way to encode
> IDN's, but it has proven to be the optimal one in design (at least).
It's the necessary minimum for compatibilty purposes, but not anywhere
near the optimal design.
Moreover, those have nothing to do with
At 11:45 AM -0400 2005-05-19, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
No, they don't, but .ws and .gw are not going to be the only ones
doing this kind of thing, and this problem won't go away unless
something is done to expressly prohibit this kind of behaviour.
Perhaps I left my program in the men's ro
> Supporting "IDN" is a necessary job. That's been made clear to the
> Internet community. If it "complicates" things, well, then that's
> what has to be done. If the Internet is to be global, it can't
> restrict the world to just a few convenient languages.
Not to quibble unnecessarily, bu
At 8:52 -0700 5/19/05, Roger Marquis wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Don't like RFC3490 and its xn-- hostnames? ;)
xn--... aren't host names, they are domain names. The host name
corresponding to that would be something my simple minded mail
application can't accept as i
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 08:52:56AM -0700, Roger Marquis wrote:
> Most definitely not, and if this were 1985 I'd be {rf}commenting on
> the inadvisability of such hostnames, and those beginning or ending
> with "-", TLD names shorter than 2 or longer than 4 characters,
^
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 12:01:54PM -0300, MARLON BORBA wrote:
> Hmm, they've always teached to me that . (dot) at the end of hostnames
> indicates the (hidden) Root domain:
>
> blah.domain.com.[Root]
This much is true.
> And my teachers always said that we don't need to write the final .
> becau
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 11:45:31AM -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 11:47:09AM +0200, Brad Knowles wrote:
> > At 3:39 PM +1000 2005-05-19, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > > Any tld that thinks this will ever work reliably need their
> > > heads read. There was a good reason
At 12:01 -0300 5/19/05, MARLON BORBA wrote:
Hmm, they've always teached to me that . (dot) at the end of hostnames
indicates the (hidden) Root domain:
blah.domain.com.[Root]
And my teachers always said that we don't need to write the final . because
every domain belongs to the Root domain.
This thr
On Thu, 19 May 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 08:04:31 PDT, Roger Marquis said:
Laurent Frigault wrote:
gethostbyaddr (and may be other functions) will return NULL under at
least FreeBSD/NetBSD for ANY PTR having the "_" character.
As it should. I wish it would also return a nul
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 11:47:09AM +0200, Brad Knowles wrote:
> At 3:39 PM +1000 2005-05-19, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > Any tld that thinks this will ever work reliably need their
> > heads read. There was a good reason all the unqualified
> > hosts got moved into .ARPA. Single label ho
At 8:04 -0700 5/19/05, Roger Marquis wrote:
Laurent Frigault wrote:
gethostbyaddr (and may be other functions) will return NULL under at
least FreeBSD/NetBSD for ANY PTR having the "_" character.
As it should. I wish it would also return a null for hostnames
containing sequential non-alphanumeri
On Thu, 19 May 2005, Roger Marquis wrote:
>
> As it should. I wish it would also return a null for hostnames
> containing sequential non-alphanumerics (--, ---, __, ___, ...).
It is possible to reject multiple dots, both in theory and in practice (in
fact it's a useful for spotting certain kinds
On Thu, 19 May 2005 08:04:31 PDT, Roger Marquis said:
>
> Laurent Frigault wrote:
> > gethostbyaddr (and may be other functions) will return NULL under at
> > least FreeBSD/NetBSD for ANY PTR having the "_" character.
>
> As it should. I wish it would also return a null for hostnames
> containin
Laurent Frigault wrote:
gethostbyaddr (and may be other functions) will return NULL under at
least FreeBSD/NetBSD for ANY PTR having the "_" character.
As it should. I wish it would also return a null for hostnames
containing sequential non-alphanumerics (--, ---, __, ___, ...).
--
Roger Marquis
R
Hmm, they've always teached to me that . (dot) at the end of hostnames
indicates the (hidden) Root domain:
blah.domain.com.[Root]
And my teachers always said that we don't need to write the final . because
every domain belongs to the Root domain.
As for DNS servers for the Root domain, they a
On Wed, 18 May 2005 21:51:32 -, Paul Vixie said:
(yes, I know this probably belongs on dnsops or someplace)
> just because you own an A RR doesn't make you a hostname.
I'll buy that..
> just because you're pointed to by an MX RR doesn't make you a mailname.
But I'm dubious on that one - wh
> --- original message ---
> from: Mark Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> to: nanog@merit.edu
> Re: Underscores in host names
> Datum: Thu, 19 May 2005 10:40:32 +1000 (EST)
>
> Hostnames can't have a dot at the end either. The dot at the
> end is a l
On Thu, 19 May 2005, Brad Knowles wrote:
>
> Check Guinea-Bissau for .gw. This has been a source of heartburn for
> many years. Any site that has a mail gateway system and uses unqualified
> hostnames is at risk, because mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" could legitimately
> be
> interpreted tw
>There is a solution for this problem. Use 32-bit character sets
> which are defined to include the entire collection of known character
> sets in all other languages on the planet.
This doesn't solve the problem of case-sensitivity and
its relatives. You probably don't want NANOG.org, nan
At 3:39 PM +1000 2005-05-19, Mark Andrews wrote:
Any tld that thinks this will ever work reliably need their
heads read. There was a good reason all the unqualified
hosts got moved into .ARPA. Single label hosts do not work
well on a global scale.
No, they don't,
At 6:10 PM -0700 2005-05-18, william(at)elan.net wrote:
The only reason it has not been discussed more actively is that no
TLD operator has yet come forward and said that they are going to use
TLD host for emails, but as soon as one does this would have to be
accommodated and quickly (otherwise
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>
>
>
>> Since changing SMTP2821 and waiting until everyone complies and accepts
>> email addresses with no "." is not an option, the solutions proposed are
>> to either have address like "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" or "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
>>
>> The only reason it
On Wed, 18 May 2005, David A. Ulevitch wrote:
.ws has an MX record.
host -t mx ws. ==> mail.worldsite.ws
Most MUA's (unix ones tended to work, not surprisingly) complain or break
on "send" but technically it works. :)
Read 2.3.5 of RFC2821 and note that "A domain (or domain name) consists of
one
> Since changing SMTP2821 and waiting until everyone complies and accepts
> email addresses with no "." is not an option, the solutions proposed are
> to either have address like "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" or "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
>
> The only reason it has not been discussed more actively is that no TLD
On Thu, 19 May 2005, Mark Andrews wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
There are also mail domains to consider. They have superficially the same
syntax as host names (they cannot have a trailing dot) but they are
generally checked much more strictly for conformance to that syntax. I'm
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>
>There are also mail domains to consider. They have superficially the same
>syntax as host names (they cannot have a trailing dot) but they are
>generally checked much more strictly for conformance to that syntax. I'm
>not sure whether the original post
Paul Vixie wrote:
> putting these checks in for master zones, slave zones, and response
> data was a significant over-reach on my part. THAT is what i'm
> apologizing for here. (and THAT is what CERT had asked me to do, since
> changing gethostbyaddr() would not, by itself, have protected Sendm
> So, you found some pre-existing rules, used them as cover for your
> problem, and now that your ~problem is fixed the pre-existing rules
> shouldn't matter to anybody anymore? Come on now, isn't it slightly
> possible that those rules were pre-existing for reasons that have nothing
> to do with
At 3:51 PM -0400 2005-05-18, Eric A. Hall wrote:
but it was wrong, and the need for it is past, and it's time for redress.
So, you found some pre-existing rules, used them as cover for your
problem, and now that your ~problem is fixed the pre-existing rules
shouldn't matter to anybody anymore?
Paul Vixie wrote:
> (why are we talking about this on NANOG rather than NAMEDROPPERS?)
because it's not relevant to the underlying rules
>>Check-names was a bad idea that might have been justified at the time,
>>but pretending it remains justified by 952/1123 has got to stop sometime.
> at the
> > However, that rant was mostly irrelevant. Can you point to _ANY_
> > application, operating system, or anything else that has any issues
> > whatsoever with an "_" of all characters?
>
> at the time of check-names, i outlawed _ as a side effect of punting. in
> order to strip/prevent newlin
(why are we talking about this on NANOG rather than NAMEDROPPERS?)
> The whole reason for check-names was because of very seriously broken
> software that would allow shell meta-characters in in-addr.arpa
> labels to do bad things.
yes. mea cupla, i let CERT twist my arm into paving over a
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 12:33:46AM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
> However, that rant was mostly irrelevant. Can you point to _ANY_
> application, operating system, or anything else that has any issues
> whatsoever with an "_" of all characters?
gethostbyaddr (and may be other functions) will retu
David Conrad wrote:
> 1) Squid/Squid proxy from two people (although there wasn't any
> indication of the actual issue, presumably Squid won't be able to
> contact the host to cache the content?)
the resolver library barfs up an error
> I suspect the rest of the jihad against heathen chara
y: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
05/18/2005 12:35 PM
To
Mark Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc
nanog@merit.edu
Subject
Re: Underscores in host names
As a result of my late night rant (must learn not to read email late
at night after getting off an airplane), I have received input that
t
As a result of my late night rant (must learn not to read email late
at night after getting off an airplane), I have received input that
two applications that have issues with the "_" character:
1) Squid/Squid proxy from two people (although there wasn't any
indication of the actual issue, p
Just one?
Squid.
By default Squid complains if it finds an underscore in a URL
hostname. It returns an "Invalid URL" error message and explains
that underscores are not allowed in hostnames. Of course you can
make Squid accept underscores if you prefer.
We felt this was better than returning a "
David Conrad wrote:
> I used to be in the 952/1123 sect, but I have since reformed and
> continue to do penance for my sins.
Your personal pendulum has no bearing on the relevance on 952/1123.
Hostnames still have their own rules, apart from the media used to
represent those hostnames (eg, ho
On Wed, 18 May 2005 19:15:44 +1000, Mark Andrews said:
> Proctor&Gamble.com anyone? That is the logical concusion of
> saying hostnames are arbitary 8 bit strings.
No, that's merely a lemma along the way.
The logical *conclusion* would be "no xn-- in hostnames".
pgpVNxozpN5AG.pgp
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 11:05:56AM +0100,
Tony Finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 12 lines which said:
> However case insensitivity puts a big spanner in the works.
And the fact that you can use any 8-bits character in a domain name
but nothing says what the encoding is. UTF-8 ? Lat
On Wed, 18 May 2005, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> No one is saying that a domain name can't be any 8 bit value.
However case insensitivity puts a big spanner in the works.
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dotat.at/
BISCAY: WEST 5 OR 6 BECOMING VARIABLE 3 OR 4. SHOWERS AT FIRST
> Mark,
>
> Grump.
>
> I used to be in the 952/1123 sect, but I have since reformed and
> continue to do penance for my sins.
>
> The "hostname is not a domain name" dodge is simply wrong. If you
> like, I can get a signed affadavit from the author of the DNS
> specifications (assuming
There are also mail domains to consider. They have superficially the same
syntax as host names (they cannot have a trailing dot) but they are
generally checked much more strictly for conformance to that syntax. I'm
not sure whether the original post was about a mail domain or the name of
a mail ho
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 12:11:14AM -0400,
Steven Champeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 92 lines which said:
> So, these are *all* non-compliant?
Yes, and you can easily check that the FreeBSD resolver, for instance,
cannot retrieve them (the GNU libc resolver on Linux can).
notux:~
Mark,
Grump.
I used to be in the 952/1123 sect, but I have since reformed and
continue to do penance for my sins.
The "hostname is not a domain name" dodge is simply wrong. If you
like, I can get a signed affadavit from the author of the DNS
specifications (assuming he's in the office tomor
on Wed, May 18, 2005 at 11:08:03AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
> RFC 952 and RFC 1123 describe what is currently legal
> in hostnames.
>
> Underscore is NOT a legal character in a hostname.
So, these are *all* non-compliant? Perhaps someone should tell them that.
Certainly would
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 11:08:03AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> >Hello all.
> >We have a client containing an underscore in the email address domain
> >name. Our email server rejects it because of it's violation of the RFC
> >standard. This individuals
One should note that COM and other tld's stopped giving out
domains outside of LDH to prevent these sorts of interoperability
issues. COM actually retrieved the ones they had delegated.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>Hello all.
>We have a client containing an underscore in the email address domain
>name. Our email server rejects it because of it's violation of the RFC
>standard. This individuals claim is that he doesn't have problems
>anywhere else and if this is goi
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>Hello all.
>We have a client containing an underscore in the email address domain
>name. Our email server rejects it because of it's violation of the RFC
>standard. This individuals claim is that he doesn't have problems
>anywhere else and if this is go
54 matches
Mail list logo
