Subject: Re: Possible to build a powerpc disk (disklabel + fs) on an i386?
To: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
From: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
List: tech-kern
Date: 11/21/2001 01:19:28
    Date:        Tue, 20 Nov 2001 12:51:46 -0500 (EST)
    From:        der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
    Message-ID:  <200111201751.MAA21246@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>

  | [This really doesn't belong on tech-kern.  Surely we can find a better
  | place for it?]

No place at all would probably be better, so this will be my last comment.

  | That's the second time you've said what the intent is.  Were you
  | involved in writing it or something?

I was around at the time (though not very actively, just watching), yes -
and I was involved all through drums when all that stuff was revisited.

  | If you don't have a stable name, you probably should be smarthosting
  | your mail to someone else.

nonsense.   why?   This works just fine, ane means my mailer config
doesn't need to change to find some other "smart host" (which more often
than not are dumb hosts and wreck things) every time I move...

  | But that aside, this sort of case is why
  | 2821 permits bracketed dotted-quads as EHLO/HELO arguments.

If you're going to be happy to receive [] as an arg, and not
bitch at that, then why on earth would you care what name is given there?
That's beyond insanity...

  | 2821 section 3.6 also says
  |    -  The domain name given in the EHLO command MUST BE either a primary
  |       host name (a domain name that resolves to an A RR) or, if the host
  |       has no name, an address literal as described in section

Yes, there's a lot about what hosts are supposed to do.  And most likely
I'm not (though your mailer doesn't seem to blow away my mail...).

But there's a difference between what a host is supposed to send, and
what the receiver is supposed to use to reject e-mail.   The reason that
1123 says that you're not allowed to reject mail because you don't like
the name that's in the HELO command is because it was recognised that it
can be hard for some hosts to figure out a suitable name to use, and
getting e-mail through is more important than quibbling over details
like that.

Of course, it's your host, you can receive whatever you like - but telling
someone that their setup isn't correct, when you have decided to ignore
the rules yourself is a bit too much.

  | Yet another of the things NAT breaks.  If you can't even find out your
  | own address you arguably shouldn't be talking to the net-at-large.

NAT is evil, I agree, but for now in many places, there is no choice.

  | > I don't expect it to ever receive connections from anywhere, so
  | > there's no point having it in the DNS.
  | I don't see why the one follows from the other.  If you don't accept
  | *or originate* connections, I might agree....

The DNS is needed to translate a name into an address so you can connect.
If you're receiving connections, then you clearly need to be in the DNS
if you expect anyone to be able to reach you (masochists who use address
literals excepted).   On the other hand, to initiate a connection, your
name isn't needed at all - the other end receives the address from you,
it can send its replies back, it never needs to know your name.  Unless
there's some particular reason why that info is useful, it shouldn't be

  | Certainly.  Send a bracketed dotted-quad, an "address literal".

OK, if it will really make you happy, I'll make my mailer send []
instead of its name.   Of course, that won't be the address you see, you
won't be able to do anything at all with it - but it would at least be an
address literal...

Second thoughts, no I won't, sending the name is a much better idea.