On 13.9.2017 23:27, Tom Samplonius via Unbound-users wrote: > > I haven’t seen a IP address in a MX record in the last 5 years. In > the 16 years since that was written, the email world has changed a lot. > Email systems are larger, and tend to run by email professionals who > know the standards. This did not happen: > > It's reasonably clear what will happen to this protocol in the future. > System administrators will continue to use dotted-decimal domain names. > There will be occasional failures from other MTAs running under other > DNS caches; the MTA implementors and the DNS implementors will react by > adding support. Eventually, no matter what DNSEXT does, dotted-decimal > domain names will be a de facto standard. > > > And the DNSEXT working group never changed the MX standard. > > > Sometimes it might better to go with the Standard way of doing things. > You can’t keep adding non-standard cruft to your services, and expect a > smooth lifecycle.
Oh yes, I very much agree. Speaking with Knot Resolver leader hat on, this is not going to be supported by Knot Resolver (unless there is a published standards-track RFC, of course :-)). Petr Špaček @ CZ.NIC > > > Tom > > >> On Sep 13, 2017, at 2:03 PM, Joe Williams <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Thanks to asking around on twitter I think we have the >> why, https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/namedroppers/20000220195445-21265-qmail@cr-yp-to >> >> https://twitter.com/jedisct1/status/908072827890405376 >> >> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Joe Williams <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Thanks for finding that Tom! >> >> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Tom Samplonius >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> dnscache is a pretty weird. From the webpage >> at http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/dnscache.html >> <http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/dnscache.html> ... >> >> >> “dnscache handles dotted-decimal domain names internally, >> giving (e.g.) the domain name 192.48.96.2 an A record of >> 192.48.96.2." >> >> >> So it looks like dnscache will return a the IP address back >> for any A queries for a IP address. And it looks like it >> returns a basically infinite ttl. >> >> Why do you need this behaviour? I used to use dnscache many >> years ago, but dropped it when powerdns-recursor became >> available. I never noticed this “feature”, and never had >> anything break when it went away. >> >> >> >> >>> On Sep 13, 2017, at 1:17 PM, Joe Williams >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks for the reply Tom, I wish I knew why as well. Right >>> now I am just trying to make my unbound config backwards >>> compatible to not break code that expects an answer for an IP >>> address. >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Tom Samplonius >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> > ;; ANSWER SECTION: >>> > 10.36.129.10. 655360 IN A 10.36.129.10 >>> >>> >>> Looking at this answer, I’m not sure why anyone would >>> want this behaviour? >>> >>> Is dnscache trying to dampen RFC1918 A queries by doing >>> this? >>> >>> >>> Tom
