On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 09:10:45AM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 06 Sep 2002 14:42:39 +0200, Peter van Dijk <peter@dataloss.nl> said:
That is a common misconception. Recursing resolvers couldn't care less if they are written according to spec (unlike old BIND versions, for example).
Well... way back when (18 months or so)...
I'm not referring to that particular problem, but read on.
On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 18:11:34 PST, Paul Vixie <vixie@mfnx.net> said:
pi@vuurwerk.nl (Pim van Riezen) writes:
bogosity while updating 8.2.2-P7 to 8.2.3:
(1) 8.2.3 Doesn't accept the "(" in the SOA string to be on the next line after the IN SOA. Our script-generated zonefiles, about 45000 of them, all had this.
Neither do the relevant RFC's, or any other DNS implementation. Pre-8.2.3 was simply _wrong_ to accept that syntax.
If you want to be the *next* guy who gets bit for 45K zones when the *next* next release starts enforcing something that was illegal-but-worked-mostly, be my guest....
A fun note is that BIND, in that situation (I worked for Vuurwerk at that time as well), just put some (high-ascii) garbage in the logfile and segfaulted, instead of reporting a nice error. Ofcourse it is also highly broken that the RFC specifies the zonefile syntax. [I think we're drifting offtopic here] Greetz, Peter -- peter@dataloss.nl | http://www.dataloss.nl/ | Undernet:#clue