On 18 September 2014 20:29, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey guys,
I just spent some time troubleshooting what appeared to be a DNS issue
before I realized that, absent the optional $type argument, checkdnsrr()
defaults to MX. Can anybody explain why it's defaulting to MX and not
On 19 September 2014 02:58, Chris Wright c...@daverandom.com wrote:
On 18 September 2014 20:29, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey guys,
I just spent some time troubleshooting what appeared to be a DNS issue
before I realized that, absent the optional $type argument, checkdnsrr()
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Adam Harvey ahar...@php.net wrote:
On 19 September 2014 02:58, Chris Wright c...@daverandom.com wrote:
On 18 September 2014 20:29, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey guys,
I just spent some time troubleshooting what appeared to be a DNS issue
On 19 September 2014 10:51, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Adam Harvey ahar...@php.net wrote:
As an alternative, could we just make the type argument mandatory in
PHP 7 and start issuing E_DEPRECATED warnings if it's omitted in 5.6
or 5.7?
I like
Hey guys,
I just spent some time troubleshooting what appeared to be a DNS issue
before I realized that, absent the optional $type argument, checkdnsrr()
defaults to MX. Can anybody explain why it's defaulting to MX and not
ANY? It seems really counter-intuitive.
--Kris
ANY (*) requests are key to many DNS amplification attacks and may fail,
even if the RR you want exists when individually requested. Such requests
should be discouraged by clients, IMO. It's disappointing that PHP's
dns_get_record() defaults to ANY.
But more to the point, what is the client-side
On 18 September 2014 21:31:33 GMT+01:00, Sanford Whiteman
figureone...@gmail.com wrote:
ANY (*) requests are key to many DNS amplification attacks and may
fail,
even if the RR you want exists when individually requested. Such
requests
should be discouraged by clients, IMO. It's disappointing that
On 18 September 2014 22:19:46 GMT+01:00, Rowan Collins
rowan.coll...@gmail.com wrote:
I hope this message doesn't sound too negative, and look forward to
clarification of your thoughts.
Apologies, I've just realised that that message wasn't in fact the beginning of
the thread, so some of my
I was just composing an e-mail advising you to follow general netiquette
rules and read the original post. :)
I disagree utterly that I did not sufficiently address the question. I
addressed it in multiple ways:
[1] ANY queries create extraneous traffic, so you want fewer PHP functions
... thought I just top-posted for the first time in, like, ever -- b/c I
guess janky Gmail does that by default (I had to switch my subscribed
address as php.net was deleting mail relayed through my ISP).
On 18 September 2014 22:47:36 GMT+01:00, Sanford Whiteman
figureone...@gmail.com wrote:
I was just composing an e-mail advising you to follow general
netiquette
rules and read the original post. :)
Yeah, for some reason your first message shows up as a standalone post, with no
hint that it was
11 matches
Mail list logo
