[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       mutt-dev
Subject:    Re: The future of mutt...
From:       Alexander Gattin <xrgtn () yandex ! ru>
Date:       2013-10-07 7:56:13
Message-ID: 20131007075613.GB18312 () localhost ! localdomain
[Download RAW message or body]


On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 02:19:11PM -0500, Derek
Martin wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 12:01:05PM -0700,
> Alexander Gattin wrote:
> > You have several hostnames or A records or
> > domain names or whatever.  Then you have
> > `hostname`, which is configured in kernel, at
> > least in Linux (cat
> > /proc/sys/kernel/hostname), which may match
> > some A record, or not. Or match partially.
> > Your method does not even do that. 
> 
> You're still making assumptions here that the
> host is using DNS,

Nope, there's magic word "whatever" in my 

> The hostname need not match any A records.

When kernel's notion of `hostname` doesn't match
any address on an of the host's interfaces, isn't
it invalid by your own definition (of double
resolvability)? cf:

> For my patch to work, all that matters is that
> the configured host resolution mechanism can
> turn the hostname into an IP, and that resolving
> that IP gets you a domain name.  That's
> guaranteed to work, because if it doesn't your
> machine is broken.
>  
> > Just imagine that there was no such thing as
> > `hostname` in kernel. 
> 
> I'm not going to imagine that because it's a
> requirement of TCP/IP.  All machines have a
> hostname.

In my opinion `hostname` in the kernel is just a
hint. You could always get a hostname for a given
purpose in runtime (via usual ip/whatever route
rules), there's no need for artificial one. For
example, when you connect to SMTP server in order
to send an e-mail, the server sees the [IP]
address that you are connecting from. You can
resolve this [IP] address into some hostname using
name resolution scheme you like (dns, files,
nis/yp or whatever) and use it for Message-ID.

If you don't want to connect (or don't want to go
online at all but still want to be able to
generate Message-ID), then my point about
/etc/resolv.conf is valid and your one isn't.

If you want real/resolvable/routable/publicly
visible (use your own definition of "real honest"
here) address for Message-ID, then it's easy to
see that kernel's `hostname` is a kludge and the
real address/name must be determined by kernel's
routing tables (plus iptables' mangle/nat tables)
instead.

-- 
With best regards,
xrgtn

["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]