On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 12:19:55AM +0100, Chris Staite via Dnsmasq-discuss wrote: > Hi again again, > > I realised it was even easier than that. This time I am done and > going to bed though, so no more spam from me (at least tonight anyway).
I when woke up, I did see three messages from same author about dnssec. Only one message was openened (the other two got marked as read) > This time I actually fixed an issue with my simplified version in so > much as it was able to circumvent the unsigned check of the parent > from the target of the CNAME if the CNAME came after the A record in > the response, which was bad. This stops that from happening, which > is good. It does require the CNAME to come before the A record, but > I think that’s required in the standard anyway? If it doesn’t, > well then at least it’s better than it was before. > > Once again, please see previous for reasoning behind the patch. Please add the reason to the proposed patch. > Thanks, Chris. > Groeten Geert Stappers -- Silence is hard to parse _______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk https://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
