Re: lpd with clients using "privacy" addresses

[Ignatios Souvatzis <is%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:29:27PM -0400, der Mouse wrote:
> I would say lpd is the canary in the coalmine.  The right thing to do
> is to fix your rDNS - to fix, work around, or stop using whatever is
> breaking it.  Patching lpd is basically sticking your fingers in your
> ears and going LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU when lpd is points out the
> brokenness.

I read your comments, and in general, I agree with the basic requirement,
that one element of rDNS should agree with one element of DNS.

But I don't think this should apply in the case we're talking about:

$(cat /etc/hosts.lpd) -eq '+')

Here

a) we shouldn't check host names at all (and the only conceptionally
ugly part is where I continue to use rDNS; I should check whether using
a string representation of the host name works);

b) if the lpd's administrator really wants to accept print jobs from
anonymous hosts that set up meaningless, but matching forward and
reverse DNS, they can do this (actually for all or a subset of libwrap-using
services (all inetd-called and lpd being some of them)) using a
PARANOID rule with the right polarity in /etc/hosts.allow (or
/etc/hosts.deny).

Regards,
        -is