[leafnode-list] Re: Disabling The "Is Valid FQDN" Check

[Whiskers]

On Thu, 5 May 2011 14:20:51 +0100 Sabahattin Gucukoglu
<mail at sabahattin-gucukoglu.com> wrote:

> On 2 May 2011, at 23:05, Whiskers wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 May 2011 15:37:56 +0100 Sabahattin Gucukoglu
> > <mail at sabahattin-gucukoglu.com> wrote:

[...]

> > It's so long since I last installed Leafnode (my present installation
> > has been running for at least 4 years) that I can't remember; does
> > Leafnode refuse to run if the "hostname" of the machine isn't an
> > FQDN?  I'm quite sure it doesn't require the machine to have a name
> > that can be found on a public DNS server - mine certainly can't!
> 
> Yeah, it goes out of its way, refusing to let you use many common
> "Local" designations, including .local, .localdomain, .test, .example
> (and all the example.* domains).  There's an entire source file devoted
> to this one little check, in fact.  But yes, DNS validation isn't done
> on the name, it only uses gethostname to find your hostname, then
> gethostbyname to get the addresses, then look up the aliases on those
> addresses to find the FQDN; it should work if you just edit /etc/hosts.
> Or you can just do what I did and set it directly in config (although it
> still makes a fuss and changes its opening banner accordingly).

I haven't tried to use any of the 'local' or 'reserved' domains for my 
local network - I've called it .private so perhaps that's why Leafnode 
didn't object to it?  (This laptop's hostname is tavy.mobile.private).

[...]

> > 2.  Anyway, my upstream server rewrites my message-ids,
> >> making the need to pick a name, pointless.  
> > 
> > Ghastly!  Change to a news-server that behaves better.  Having MIDs
> > that can be identified as yours, is an important part of your usenet
> > identity.
> 
> I agree, but it's impossible.  Private news server.  I also suspect, now
> I've had Leafnode running for a while, that at least one of my
> newsreaders (Unison) isn't even *generating* Message-IDs itself.  So
> I'll have a look at the articles fetched through Leafnode once I begin
> posting through it.

Some clients have to be configured to generate their own MIDs; I have 
Leafnode set to generate good MIDs just in case the client doesn't - I 
sometimes try out different clients out of curiosity, although slrn always 
draws me back.  But no news-server should force its own MIDs if the client 
generates anything tolerable.

> > And, 3.  I do not like the
> >> idea of using a name - any name - not under my control, whether it
> >> exists in DNS or not.  MSGids must be globally unique, not valid; this
> >> is the new reality.  It is exactly the same thinking that makes any
> >> valid domain or domain name portion in munging a very bad idea.
> > 
> > I agree that the usenet and NNTP systems don't seem to break when MIDs
> > have nonsense to the right of the @ character.
> > 
> > An FQDN doesn't have to be listed on any DNS server; it doesn't even
> > have to be unique to one machine.  I think something like
> > mycomputer.local is a perfectly valid FQDN; it's certainly fine for a
> > "hostname", as far as I know.
> 
> This doesn't seem to be the thinking of Leafnode's authors.  The current
> standards derive from mail, which makes the RHS of a Message-Id a SHOULD
> domain.  The emphasis is stronger in netnews because there are
> relatively more globally unique Message-IDs floating around out there,
> but it's still a SHOULD, for good reasons.  Some people simply don't
> have access to a domain or domain-like quantity that is not assuredly
> theirs.  

Technically, Leafnode is correct; but the real usenet is a lot more 
tolerant than the RFCs.

> I especially appreciate the way news.individual.net has handled
> this, setting aside mid.individual.net just for this use, and putting an
> entry in DNS with a TXT to make it valid, semantically and actually, as
> an FQDN.

Individual go even further than that; they allow users to generate 
personal FQDNs using their "user ID number", and even allow those FQDNs to 
be used when posting through other NSPs 
<http://www.individual.net/faq.php#4.4>.

Some other NSPs offer similar options.

There are also independent sources of personal FQDNs for generating usenet 
MIDs, eg <http://th-h.de/fqdn/>.

[...]

> The machine isn't directly related to the domain, except in the tenuous
> since that I own both.  I agree, it's nebulous, but I think the check is
> an imposition and not a help.
> 
> Cheers,
> Sabahattin

Leafnode isn't the only 'old school' program that expects all systems to 
conform with all RFCs and Unix 'best practice'.

-- 
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
--  Whiskers 
-- ~~~~~~~~~~