FQDN for Leafnode - Mandriva

This is a discussion on FQDN for Leafnode - Mandriva ; on Saturday 05 January 2008 02:07 in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.mandriva Bit Twister wrote: > On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 01:26:01 +1100, Doug Laidlaw wrote: >> >> Interesting that you were caught too BT. I am now using "dougshost. >> ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 47

Thread: FQDN for Leafnode

  1. Re: FQDN for Leafnode SOLUTION

    on Saturday 05 January 2008 02:07
    in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.mandriva
    Bit Twister wrote:

    > On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 01:26:01 +1100, Doug Laidlaw wrote:
    >>
    >> Interesting that you were caught too BT. I am now using "dougshost. >> Web domain>", since you thought that my previous "dougshost.mydomain.org"
    >> might overlap with an issued domain name.

    >
    > Normally when I replay to a network problem, I assume a newbie and
    > assume they made up a domain name. I'll check domain name with
    > whois mydomain.org
    > and indicate the domain may be in use. Here try
    > $ whois junk-stuff.com
    > $ whois junkstuff.com

    [snip]

    Good idea, but now that you have publicly suggested it you can
    expect that multiple people will say, "I'll use that!", which
    makes it a bad idea.

    It is not hard to get a genuine unique FQDN for free and avoid
    all of this hassle.


    --
    sig goes here...
    Peter D.

  2. Re: FQDN for Leafnode

    on Wednesday 02 January 2008 17:08
    in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.mandriva
    David W. Hodgins wrote:

    > On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 01:01:05 -0500, Bit Twister
    > wrote:
    >
    >> How do I get rid of the must have FQDN problem.

    >
    > Have you set the HOSTNAME= in /etc/sysconfig/network ?


    Nothing to do with it. The only thing that counts is the
    hostname =
    line in /etc/leafnode/config, that line does not have to
    agree with anything else on your system.

    If you have paid for a FQDN this is a trivial problem.

    With my first ISP, I did not own a FQDN but I knew that as
    @ the domain . would be mine if I
    paid a little extra. I used that in my leafnode config
    file confident that it was globally unique.

    If you sign up (for free) with the news server at
    they will allow you to register
    .mozilla.org, which is what goes into your leafnode
    config file - and it does not have to match any of your
    other configurations at wb.home.invalid or whatever.


    --
    sig goes here...
    Peter D.

  3. Re: FQDN for Leafnode SOLUTION

    on Saturday 05 January 2008 07:45
    in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.mandriva
    Bit Twister wrote:

    > On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:27:37 -0600, Moe Trin wrote:
    >
    >> Pity he hasn't put the same amount of energy into creating a more robust
    >> message-ID generator.

    >
    > Maybe something as simple as (postnumer)nic_mac_id@anything.user.uses
    > No nic, use cpu serial number. No cpu serial, use drive UUID.


    It is a really hard problem. If you reinstall then you have the
    same hardware you had last time. Some hardware is dodgy and does
    not have a unique ID. You can deliberately, or accidentally,
    override some hardware IDs in software. Many clocks are broken.
    The Unix beginning of time, 0:00 1st of Jan 1970 GST crops up
    quite often. Reformatting your disk will restart your "message ID"
    count. And worst of all, everyone is running identical software.

    It is not easy being unique.


    --
    sig goes here...
    Peter D.

  4. Re: FQDN for Leafnode

    on Thursday 03 January 2008 12:24
    in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.mandriva
    Bit Twister wrote:

    > On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 16:23:09 -0800, Jeff@gammalinux.inet wrote:
    >
    >> Yes it is something simple. Leafnode doesn't like the ".invalid" part.

    >
    > Well, frap.
    >
    > And double frap, it does not like ".test" either. :-(
    > .test should work in my opinion.


    That is an obvious guess, and highly likely to be non-unique.


    --
    sig goes here...
    Peter D.

  5. Re: FQDN for Leafnode SOLUTION

    On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 19:45:40 +1100, Peter D. wrote:

    > It is not hard to get a genuine unique FQDN for free and avoid
    > all of this hassle.


    I hear where you are coming from, but first past through the Leafnode
    docs seem to imply it would check ip address, node name.
    If they did not match, leafnode would not work, as I /had/ misunderstood it.

    Right now, I want my named DNS server to resolve wb.home.bogus to 192.168.1.130.
    If I registered home.bogus, then wb.home.bogus would resolve to my
    ISP assigned number, not 192.168.1.130.

    I have /yet/ been able to get it do forward look ups, :-(

    $ nslookup wb.home.bogus
    Server: 192.168.1.130
    Address: 192.168.1.130#53

    ** server can't find wb.home.bogus: NXDOMAIN

    Reverse look up is working

    $ nslookup 192.168.1.130
    Server: 192.168.1.130
    Address: 192.168.1.130#53

    130.1.168.192.in-addr.arpa name = wb.home.bogus.


    Had I registered home.bogus then I would get something like

    $ nslookup wb.home.bogus
    Server: 192.168.1.130
    Address: 192.168.1.130#53

    Name: wb.home.bogus
    Address: 208.69.32.170

    And not know my DNS server is not working. :-(

  6. Re: FQDN for Leafnode SOLUTION

    On Sat, 05 Jan 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.mandriva, in article
    <571455-27p.ln1@psd.news.gnode.com.au>, Peter D. wrote:

    >Bit Twister wrote:


    >> Moe Trin wrote:


    >>> Pity he hasn't put the same amount of energy into creating a more
    >>> robust message-ID generator.

    >>
    >> Maybe something as simple as (postnumer)nic_mac_id@anything.user.uses
    >> No nic, use cpu serial number. No cpu serial, use drive UUID.

    >
    >It is a really hard problem.


    No worse than using the registered FQDN on the right side. The computer
    I use at work has had the same FQDN since roughly 1984, although the
    hardware has probably changed over a dozen times through five different
    architectures from 29000-SSI to IA64. My home systems have been
    equally varied.

    >If you reinstall then you have the same hardware you had last time.
    >Some hardware is dodgy and does not have a unique ID. You can
    >deliberately, or accidentally, override some hardware IDs in software.


    And...?

    >Many clocks are broken. The Unix beginning of time, 0:00 1st of Jan
    >1970 GST crops up quite often.


    That's actually 01/01/1970 at 00:00:00 UTC - the abbreviation 'GST'
    is officially used for the obsolete "Guam Standard Time" (now Chamorro
    Standard Time = +10:00), and the time in South Georgia Island (-02:00)
    and unofficially for "Gulf Standard Time" (the timezone in the Western
    side of the Persian Gulf). That's why the letter abbreviations other than
    UTC (and the obsolete GMT) aren't used where they might be confused. See
    ftp://elsie.nci.nih.gov/pub/tzdata2007k.tar.gz

    Some news servers will refuse to accept a posting if the date header
    indicates a time more than 24 hours into the future or 72 hours into
    the past. This isn't a requirement, but MAY become one in the future.

    >Reformatting your disk will restart your "message ID" count.


    That's true, which is why it's not recommended in RFC1036, or the
    proposed replacement draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-12.txt.

    >And worst of all, everyone is running identical software.


    Oh, really?

    >It is not easy being unique.


    [compton ~]$ whatis random
    random (3) - random number generator
    random (4) - kernel random number source devices
    [compton ~]$

    I imagine the first 256 bits out of /dev/random might do. ;->

    Old guy

  7. Re: FQDN for Leafnode SOLUTION

    On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 10:41:17 in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.mandriva, in
    article , Bit Twister wrote:

    >On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 19:45:40 +1100, Peter D. wrote:
    >
    >> It is not hard to get a genuine unique FQDN for free and avoid
    >> all of this hassle.

    >
    >I hear where you are coming from, but first past through the Leafnode
    >docs seem to imply it would check ip address, node name.


    I'm not sure that's the perfect solution. The "free" domain registrars
    tend to be worth all you paid for them... at best.

    >I have /yet/ been able to get it do forward look ups, :-(
    >
    >$ nslookup wb.home.bogus
    >Server: 192.168.1.130
    >Address: 192.168.1.130#53
    >
    >** server can't find wb.home.bogus: NXDOMAIN
    >
    >Reverse look up is working


    Forward zone file? The DNS-HOWTO is ancient, but it might have
    some clues.

    Old guy

  8. Re: [ OT ]FQDN for Leafnode SOLUTION

    On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 16:13:04 -0600, Moe Trin wrote:
    >
    > Forward zone file? The DNS-HOWTO is ancient, but it might have
    > some clues.


    I started out using that, went through a few other urls on dns, tried the
    /usr/share/doc/bind/chroot/named/var/named/mandrakesoft.zone
    That one would not even pass named-checkzone.

    Tried a working BSD zone.
    Tried one given by someone running Mandriva 2007.0. No go.
    Found an article on linux.com which is closer to a stronger typed zone.

    Log shows home.zone loaded. date/time snipped

    general: info: zone 0.in-addr.arpa/IN: loaded serial 42
    general: info: zone 0.0.127.in-addr.arpa/IN: loaded serial 1997022700
    general: info: zone 1.168.192.in-addr.arpa/IN: loaded serial 2008010501
    general: info: zone 255.in-addr.arpa/IN: loaded serial 42
    general: info: zone 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0. 0.0.0.0.0.0.ip6.arpa/IN: loaded serial 1997022700
    general: info: zone localdomain/IN: loaded serial 42
    general: info: zone localhost/IN: loaded serial 42
    general: info: zone home.zone/IN: loaded serial 2008010501
    general: notice: running

    query log show
    client 192.168.1.130#33624: query: wb.home.bogus IN A +

    Both named-checkconf, named-checkzone run without errors.

    # tail -14 /etc/named.conf
    };

    zone "home.zone" IN {
    type master;
    file "master/home.zone";
    allow-update { none; };
    };

    zone "1.168.192.in-addr.arpa" IN {
    type master;
    file "reverse/home.reversed";
    allow-update { none; };
    };


    Latest hone.zone attempt has:
    # head -18 /var/lib/named/var/named/master/home.zone
    $TTL 1D
    $ORIGIN home.zone.
    home.zone. IN SOA ns1.home.bogus. admin.home.bogus. (
    2008010501 ; Serial num yyymmddnn
    1D ; Refresh
    6H ; Retry
    1W ; Expire
    1H ; Minimum TTL
    )
    ; DNS Servers
    IN NS ns1.home.bogus.
    ;
    ; Machine Names
    localhost IN A 127.0.0.1
    ns1 IN A 192.168.1.130
    fw IN A 192.168.1.11
    wb IN A 192.168.1.130
    beta IN A 192.168.1.131

    LAN ip is commented out in bogon_acl.conf
    # grep 192 bogon_acl.conf
    // Linux we allow the 192.168.0.0/16 network to do recursive lookups per
    // 192.0.2.0/24;
    // 192.168.0.0/16;

    I assume /etc/named.conf is working if
    # nslookup 192.168.1.11
    Server: 192.168.1.130
    Address: 192.168.1.130#53

    11.1.168.192.in-addr.arpa name = fw.home.bogus.

    works. Then

    # nslookup fw.home.bogus
    Server: 192.168.1.130
    Address: 192.168.1.130#53

    ** server can't find fw.home.bogus.home.bogus: NXDOMAIN

    Should have worked.

    $ dig fw.home.bogus

    ; <<>> DiG 9.4.1-P1 <<>> fw.home.bogus
    ;; global options: printcmd
    ;; Got answer:
    ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 44356
    ;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0

    ;; QUESTION SECTION:
    ;fw.home.bogus. IN A

    ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
    .. 10425 IN SOA a.root-servers.net. nstld.verisign-grs.com. 2008010500 1800 900 604800 86400

    ;; Query time: 1 msec
    ;; SERVER: 192.168.1.130#53(192.168.1.130)
    ;; WHEN: Sat Jan 5 17:17:11 2008
    ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 106

    [1]+ Done edt /local/doc/score.txt

  9. Re: [ OT ]FQDN for Leafnode SOLUTION

    On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 18:20:11 -0500, Bit Twister wrote:

    > Both named-checkconf, named-checkzone run without errors.


    Change as follows,

    In /var/lib/named/etc/named.conf ...
    zone "bogus.home" IN {
    type master;
    file "master/home.zone";
    allow-update { none; };
    };
    In cat /var/lib/named/var/named/master/home.zone ...
    $TTL 1D

    @ IN SOA localhost. root.localhost (
    2008010501 ; Serial num yyymmddnn
    1D ; Refresh
    6H ; Retry
    1W ; Expire
    1H ; Minimum TTL
    )
    ; DNS Servers
    IN NS ns1
    ;
    ; Machine Names
    localhost IN A 127.0.0.1
    ns1 IN A 192.168.1.130
    fw IN A 192.168.1.11
    wb IN A 192.168.1.130
    beta IN A 192.168.1.131

    Regards, Dave Hodgins

    --
    Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email.
    (nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
    use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)

  10. Re: [ OT ]FQDN for Leafnode SOLUTION

    On Sat, 5 Jan 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.mandriva, in article
    , Bit Twister wrote:

    >Both named-checkconf, named-checkzone run without errors.


    That _should_ make things work, but I'm not the DNS guy. However,
    you are talking about "home.zone" verses "home.bogus" hostnames.

    >I assume /etc/named.conf is working if


    Yes

    ># nslookup fw.home.bogus
    >Server: 192.168.1.130
    >Address: 192.168.1.130#53
    >
    >** server can't find fw.home.bogus.home.bogus: NXDOMAIN


    Well, lets loose the 'domain' or 'search' directives from the
    /etc/resolv.conf file,, or try asking about 'fw.home.bogus.'. I'd
    also try running a sniffer to see what the dialog looks like.

    >; <<>> DiG 9.4.1-P1 <<>> fw.home.bogus


    >;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
    >. 10425 IN SOA a.root-servers.net.
    >nstld.verisign-grs.com. 2008010500 1800 900 604800 86400


    Well, I can understand why a.root-servers.net would say NXDOMAIN. Why
    did it wind up asking that server?

    Old guy

  11. Re: FQDN for Leafnode SOLUTION

    on Sunday 06 January 2008 09:05
    in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.mandriva
    Moe Trin wrote:

    > On Sat, 05 Jan 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.mandriva, in
    > article <571455-27p.ln1@psd.news.gnode.com.au>, Peter D. wrote:
    >
    >>Bit Twister wrote:

    >
    >>> Moe Trin wrote:

    >
    >>>> Pity he hasn't put the same amount of energy into creating a more
    >>>> robust message-ID generator.
    >>>
    >>> Maybe something as simple as (postnumer)nic_mac_id@anything.user.uses
    >>> No nic, use cpu serial number. No cpu serial, use drive UUID.

    >>
    >>It is a really hard problem.

    >
    > No worse than using the registered FQDN on the right side. The computer
    > I use at work has had the same FQDN since roughly 1984, although the
    > hardware has probably changed over a dozen times through five different
    > architectures from 29000-SSI to IA64. My home systems have been
    > equally varied.


    Hi Moe,

    Sorry for the long rant. It is not directed at you, but it
    belongs somewhere in this thread and giving half a dozen bits
    of the answer in various places does not seem as useful.

    Philosophically, the local sysadmin should have a clue. If you
    don't even know what your machine is called you should not be
    surprised when problems crop up.

    Insisting on a FQDN means that the software only has to worry
    about ID clashes with messages coming from the same machine,
    not every "localhost" in the universe. It is still a hard
    problem, but not as hard.

    Unfortunately if you have a dial-up account or similar then
    your machine probably does not have a FQDN, so configuring
    leafnode is a problem.

    There are several ways out of this problem.

    1. Don't use a local news server. Only read news while online,
    or use a news reader with a cache.

    2. Get a genuine FQDN. (Even if you are only on dial-up.)

    3. Fake a FQDN. There are a few sensible rules about how
    to do this so that you don't stuff things up for yourself
    and others.

    A fake FQDN does not have to be resolvable. (Actually *IS NOT*
    resolvable.) It does not have to match your machine name, valid
    or invalid. But you really do want it to be unique, a very
    different problem from putting an ".invalid" on all local names so
    that they can be identified as local only if they escape.

    Competent ISPs will allocate customers a FQDN for news only,
    typically .. If anyone tries to view
    http://. they will get an error stating that
    it does not exist, but put it in /etc/leafnode/config and
    everything will work fine.

    Incompetent ISPs will try to sell you the address
    http://., give an error to anyone tries to
    view that address before you have paid for it,and be quite unaware
    that you have entered it into /etc/leafnode/config and have
    everything working fine.

    Good third party nntp servers (free and otherwise) will allow
    you to register a FQDN of the form .,
    which is what goes into /etc/leafnode/config.

    It would be a bit perverse, but you could register with a
    free news server, use that FQDN and connect to your ISP's
    news server.

    I recommend that;

    if you have a competent ISP, do it like they tell you to;

    if you have an in-competent ISP with a good news server
    try .;

    if you have an in-competent ISP with a bad news server
    sign up with an independent news server, configure
    leafnode to use the FQDN from the news server and
    download messages from BOTH your ISP and the news server;

    if it is still not good enough you will have to open your
    wallet and get a better ISP or news server.


    >>If you reinstall then you have the same hardware you had last time.
    >>Some hardware is dodgy and does not have a unique ID. You can
    >>deliberately, or accidentally, override some hardware IDs in software.

    >
    > And...?


    Just pointing out that it is a hard problem and that ignorance,
    carelessness and incompetence at many levels can make it harder.

    >>Many clocks are broken. The Unix beginning of time, 0:00 1st of Jan
    >>1970 GST crops up quite often.

    >
    > That's actually 01/01/1970 at 00:00:00 UTC - the abbreviation 'GST'
    > is officially used for the obsolete "Guam Standard Time" (now Chamorro
    > Standard Time = +10:00), and the time in South Georgia Island (-02:00)
    > and unofficially for "Gulf Standard Time" (the timezone in the Western
    > side of the Persian Gulf). That's why the letter abbreviations other than
    > UTC (and the obsolete GMT) aren't used where they might be confused. See
    > ftp://elsie.nci.nih.gov/pub/tzdata2007k.tar.gz


    My bad. I've been told before, GST = goods and services tax.

    UTC and Atomic Time are the two times that are important.

    > Some news servers will refuse to accept a posting if the date header
    > indicates a time more than 24 hours into the future or 72 hours into
    > the past. This isn't a requirement, but MAY become one in the future.


    That sound reasonable, but having a "date" field and including the
    date into the message_ID seems redundant.

    >>Reformatting your disk will restart your "message ID" count.

    >
    > That's true, which is why it's not recommended in RFC1036, or the
    > proposed replacement draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-12.txt.
    >
    >>And worst of all, everyone is running identical software.

    >
    > Oh, really?


    I meant that they will be when everyone is running a well
    maintained Linux box. ;-) In the meantime, there are large
    groups of machines where all the members of a group have the
    same news server software.

    >>It is not easy being unique.

    >
    > [compton ~]$ whatis random
    > random (3) - random number generator
    > random (4) - kernel random number source devices
    > [compton ~]$


    It is not easy being random either, but that is an unrelated
    problem. Consider a true random number generator that outputs
    "0" or "1" and messageIDs of the form output>. By the third message you would be guaranteed to have
    a duplication, if you were unlucky then the second would be a
    duplicate.

    > I imagine the first 256 bits out of /dev/random might do. ;->


    Given that pseudo random number generators are much easier
    to build than real random number generators I would recommend
    against that.

    It could be amusing to have the news reader instruct the user
    to "move the mouse of a minute to create enough entropy to
    generate a message ID".

    > Old guy


    --
    sig goes here...
    Peter D.

  12. Re: FQDN for Leafnode SOLUTION

    on Saturday 05 January 2008 21:41
    in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.mandriva
    Bit Twister wrote:

    > On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 19:45:40 +1100, Peter D. wrote:
    >
    >> It is not hard to get a genuine unique FQDN for free and avoid
    >> all of this hassle.

    >
    > I hear where you are coming from, but first past through the Leafnode
    > docs seem to imply it would check ip address, node name.
    > If they did not match, leafnode would not work, as I /had/ misunderstood
    > it.
    >
    > Right now, I want my named DNS server to resolve wb.home.bogus to
    > 192.168.1.130. If I registered home.bogus, then wb.home.bogus would
    > resolve to my
    > ISP assigned number, not 192.168.1.130.

    [snip]

    See long rant in my other post. ;-)

    The FQDN used to configure leafnode does not have to be
    resolvable, it has to be unique.


    --
    sig goes here...
    Peter D.

  13. Re: FQDN for Leafnode SOLUTION

    on Sunday 06 January 2008 09:13
    in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.mandriva
    Moe Trin wrote:

    > On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 10:41:17 in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.mandriva,
    > in article , Bit Twister wrote:
    >
    >>On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 19:45:40 +1100, Peter D. wrote:
    >>
    >>> It is not hard to get a genuine unique FQDN for free and avoid
    >>> all of this hassle.

    >>
    >>I hear where you are coming from, but first past through the Leafnode
    >>docs seem to imply it would check ip address, node name.

    >
    > I'm not sure that's the perfect solution. The "free" domain registrars
    > tend to be worth all you paid for them... at best.

    [snip]

    You can configure leafnode to suck messages from multiple sources,
    then if one of them misses a beat you don't care - or even notice.


    --
    sig goes here...
    Peter D.

  14. Re: FQDN for Leafnode SOLUTION

    On Sun, 06 Jan 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.mandriva, in article
    , Peter D. wrote:

    >Philosophically, the local sysadmin should have a clue. If you
    >don't even know what your machine is called you should not be
    >surprised when problems crop up.


    A minor problem: most home users aren't sysadmins, and are not aware
    that there is some requirements regarding hostname and a lot of other
    things.

    >Insisting on a FQDN means that the software only has to worry
    >about ID clashes with messages coming from the same machine,
    >not every "localhost" in the universe. It is still a hard
    >problem, but not as hard.


    Setting the LHS is _relatively_ easy - timestamp and a random string.
    Yes, it's conceivable that timestamps may not be unique, but I think
    I can deal with likelihood. Localhost? Yeah, that's a problem, and
    most people can not be imaginative enough to come up with a decent
    name that is likely to be unique. (But then, think about the problem
    of coming up with a unique but usable names in a sub-domain with over
    2000 hosts. My users at work manage to do so.)

    >Unfortunately if you have a dial-up account or similar then
    >your machine probably does not have a FQDN, so configuring
    >leafnode is a problem.


    Well... yeah, the host does not have a permanent name, and trying to
    update the hostname to the name associated with the IP address of the
    Internet connection (especially with a GUI desktop) is a disaster
    waiting for the unwary. However, the application that is doing the
    actual news posting (to a "real" NNTP server) has AT THE TIME OF
    POSTING a unique hostname on that interface to the world.

    >There are several ways out of this problem.
    >
    >1. Don't use a local news server. Only read news while online,
    >or use a news reader with a cache.


    Or have your spooler (leafnode/slrnpull/what-ever) operate in the same
    way as the on-line reader.

    >2. Get a genuine FQDN. (Even if you are only on dial-up.)
    >
    >3. Fake a FQDN. There are a few sensible rules about how
    >to do this so that you don't stuff things up for yourself
    >and others.
    >
    >A fake FQDN does not have to be resolvable. (Actually *IS NOT*
    >resolvable.) It does not have to match your machine name, valid
    >or invalid. But you really do want it to be unique, a very
    >different problem from putting an ".invalid" on all local names so
    >that they can be identified as local only if they escape.


    The ".invalid" suffix is _desired_ (to indicate to the clueless that
    no matter what they may think, the name is not real). While section
    2.1.5 of RFC1036 specifies that the message ID "must be" formed as
    "", section 3.6.4 of RFC2822 merely states
    that the message ID must be unique, AND THEN SAYS (3rd paragraph on
    page 25)

    a good method is to put the
    domain name (or a domain literal IP address) of the host on which the
    message identifier was created on the right hand side of the "@", and
    put a combination of the current absolute date and time along with
    some other currently unique (perhaps sequential) identifier available
    on the system (for example, a process id number) on the left hand
    side. Using a date on the left hand side and a domain name or domain
    literal on the right hand side makes it possible to guarantee
    uniqueness since no two hosts use the same domain name or IP address
    at the same time. Though other algorithms will work, it is
    RECOMMENDED that the right hand side contain some domain identifier
    (either of the host itself or otherwise) such that the generator of
    the message identifier can guarantee the uniqueness of the left hand
    side within the scope of that domain.

    Notice the last sentence.

    >Competent ISPs will allocate customers a FQDN for news only,
    >typically ..


    In twentyfive years on the Internet (1983), I don't think I've never
    encountered this. Domain names are not usernames.

    >If anyone tries to view http://. they will get an error
    >stating that it does not exist, but put it in /etc/leafnode/config and
    >everything will work fine.


    Never mind the fact there has never been a requirement for every host
    to have a web server. But I suspect you really mean someone attempting
    to look up the Internet hostname in a DNS.

    >Incompetent ISPs will try to sell you the address
    >http://., give an error to anyone tries to
    >view that address before you have paid for it,and be quite unaware
    >that you have entered it into /etc/leafnode/config and have
    >everything working fine.


    HUH??? I've read this ten times, and I still don't know what you
    expect differently.

    >It would be a bit perverse, but you could register with a
    >free news server, use that FQDN and connect to your ISP's
    >news server.


    If the news server gives you a FQDN, but it's just as easy to use the
    FQDN of the interface you are using to connect to the Internet. Is that
    a cable modem? Well, you'd have to figure out how to find the address
    it has.

    >My bad. I've been told before, GST = goods and services tax.
    >
    >UTC and Atomic Time are the two times that are important.


    UTC - yes. TAI is only used by the scientific community. People seem
    to be unaware there are a huge number of timezones in the world.

    [compton ~]$ wc -l time.2007k/time.zone.names
    396 time.2007k/time.zone.names
    [compton ~]$ awk '{ print $NF }' time.2007k/time.zone.names | sort -u | column
    -10:00 -3:00 -6:00 -9:30 11:00 13:00 3:00 5:00 6:30 9:00
    -11:00 -3:30 -7:00 0:00 11:30 14:00 3:30 5:30 7:00 9:30
    -1:00 -4:00 -8:00 10:00 12:00 1:00 4:00 5:45 8:00
    -2:00 -5:00 -9:00 10:30 12:45 2:00 4:30 6:00 8:45
    [compton ~]$ find /usr/share/zoneinfo -type f | wc -l
    411
    [compton ~]$

    time.zone.names was created from the tzdata2007k sourcefiles. There's
    38 time offsets, but only 26 letters ;-)

    >That sound reasonable, but having a "date" field and including the
    >date into the message_ID seems redundant.


    The "Date:" header is required by the various RFCs, Above, the format
    of the date component of the LHS isn't specified, and could easily be
    a hex representation of time_t (seconds since the UNIX epoch).

    >> I imagine the first 256 bits out of /dev/random might do. ;->

    >
    >Given that pseudo random number generators are much easier
    >to build than real random number generators I would recommend
    >against that.


    It got trimmed, but that was referring to generating a RHS part during
    the software installation.

    Old guy

  15. Re: FQDN for Leafnode SOLUTION

    on Monday 07 January 2008 11:51
    in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.mandriva
    Moe Trin wrote:

    > On Sun, 06 Jan 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.mandriva, in
    > article , Peter D. wrote:
    >
    >>Philosophically, the local sysadmin should have a clue. If you
    >>don't even know what your machine is called you should not be
    >>surprised when problems crop up.

    >
    > A minor problem: most home users aren't sysadmins, and are not aware
    > that there is some requirements regarding hostname and a lot of other
    > things.



    Occasionally I say, "You are the system administrator." to someone.

    It is not a hard job if you have simple needs, and Mandriva.
    There are operating systems out there that pretend that they
    don't need a sysadmin, when they really do.

    Oh for the good old days when everyone knew that the system
    administrator was that god-like high priest in a white coat
    and glasses so thick that they were bullet proof

    I'm rambling, aren't I?



    >>Insisting on a FQDN means that the software only has to worry
    >>about ID clashes with messages coming from the same machine,
    >>not every "localhost" in the universe. It is still a hard
    >>problem, but not as hard.

    >
    > Setting the LHS is _relatively_ easy - timestamp and a random string.
    > Yes, it's conceivable that timestamps may not be unique, but I think
    > I can deal with likelihood. Localhost? Yeah, that's a problem, and
    > most people can not be imaginative enough to come up with a decent
    > name that is likely to be unique. (But then, think about the problem
    > of coming up with a unique but usable names in a sub-domain with over
    > 2000 hosts. My users at work manage to do so.)


    Are you the demi-god, with the power to enforce? There is no world
    wide Moe to deny access and smack heads.

    What would be wrong with a LHS of a time stamp and a sequential
    message count? (Assuming unique RHS.)

    >>Unfortunately if you have a dial-up account or similar then
    >>your machine probably does not have a FQDN, so configuring
    >>leafnode is a problem.

    >
    > Well... yeah, the host does not have a permanent name, and trying to
    > update the hostname to the name associated with the IP address of the
    > Internet connection (especially with a GUI desktop) is a disaster
    > waiting for the unwary. However, the application that is doing the
    > actual news posting (to a "real" NNTP server) has AT THE TIME OF
    > POSTING a unique hostname on that interface to the world.


    That is a thought - don't generate a Message_ID until connection
    is established. I don't know what ramifications that would have
    for Leafnode. You can take it up with the author if you wish.

    >>There are several ways out of this problem.
    >>
    >>1. Don't use a local news server. Only read news while online,
    >>or use a news reader with a cache.

    >
    > Or have your spooler (leafnode/slrnpull/what-ever) operate in the same
    > way as the on-line reader.
    >
    >>2. Get a genuine FQDN. (Even if you are only on dial-up.)
    >>
    >>3. Fake a FQDN. There are a few sensible rules about how
    >>to do this so that you don't stuff things up for yourself
    >>and others.
    >>
    >>A fake FQDN does not have to be resolvable. (Actually *IS NOT*
    >>resolvable.) It does not have to match your machine name, valid
    >>or invalid. But you really do want it to be unique, a very
    >>different problem from putting an ".invalid" on all local names so
    >>that they can be identified as local only if they escape.

    >
    > The ".invalid" suffix is _desired_ (to indicate to the clueless that
    > no matter what they may think, the name is not real). While section
    > 2.1.5 of RFC1036 specifies that the message ID "must be" formed as
    > "", section 3.6.4 of RFC2822 merely states
    > that the message ID must be unique, AND THEN SAYS (3rd paragraph on
    > page 25)
    >
    > a good method is to put the
    > domain name (or a domain literal IP address) of the host on which the
    > message identifier was created on the right hand side of the "@", and
    > put a combination of the current absolute date and time along with
    > some other currently unique (perhaps sequential) identifier available
    > on the system (for example, a process id number) on the left hand
    > side. Using a date on the left hand side and a domain name or domain
    > literal on the right hand side makes it possible to guarantee
    > uniqueness since no two hosts use the same domain name or IP address
    > at the same time. Though other algorithms will work, it is
    > RECOMMENDED that the right hand side contain some domain identifier
    > (either of the host itself or otherwise) such that the generator of
    > the message identifier can guarantee the uniqueness of the left hand
    > side within the scope of that domain.
    >
    > Notice the last sentence.


    I haven't read that before, but it makes sense. "Guarantee" is a bit of
    a problem if there happens to be even one bozo on the 'net doing
    something wrong.

    I'm quite happy that I can find "some domain identifier" (not my
    hostname) that nobody else should be using.

    There are some instructions from Matthias Andree (the Leafnode author)
    but they are not included in the leafnode rpm. A packaging error?
    Here is a link, .

    >>Competent ISPs will allocate customers a FQDN for news only,
    >>typically ..

    >
    > In twentyfive years on the Internet (1983), I don't think I've never
    > encountered this. Domain names are not usernames.


    Twentyfive years on the Internet and you've never encountered a
    competent ISP? ;-) Sad, but believable. Or did you mean user names
    as domain names?

    My first ISP gave me a user name of
    "psd" and a web site at
    That web site is long since defunct and Alphalink has been
    taken over by Chariot.

    Alphalink used to offer what they called "partial domain" hosting.
    If I had of paid a little more I could have had my home page at
    . Chariot does not seem to offer
    partial domain hosting, although both Alphalink and Chariot
    offer(ed) "full domain hosting" for addresses of the form,
    <http://[your registered name].com.au>.

    I knew at the time that psd.alphalink.com.au was not in use,
    or available to anyone else, because Alphalink was trying to
    sell it to me.

    Partial domain hosting seems to have fallen out of fashion.
    I just googled "partial domain hosting" and only got two hits.

    >>If anyone tries to view http://. they will get an error
    >>stating that it does not exist, but put it in /etc/leafnode/config and
    >>everything will work fine.

    >
    > Never mind the fact there has never been a requirement for every host
    > to have a web server. But I suspect you really mean someone attempting
    > to look up the Internet hostname in a DNS.


    Yes. No one has ever been able to look up the IP address of
    psd.alphalink.com.au, because there was not and is not any
    such IP address.

    >>Incompetent ISPs will try to sell you the address
    >>http://., give an error to anyone tries to
    >>view that address before you have paid for it,and be quite unaware
    >>that you have entered it into /etc/leafnode/config and have
    >>everything working fine.

    >
    > HUH??? I've read this ten times, and I still don't know what you
    > expect differently.


    The only difference is that the ISP does not know that
    you are doing it.

    >>It would be a bit perverse, but you could register with a
    >>free news server, use that FQDN and connect to your ISP's
    >>news server.

    >
    > If the news server gives you a FQDN, but it's just as easy to use the
    > FQDN of the interface you are using to connect to the Internet. Is that
    > a cable modem? Well, you'd have to figure out how to find the address
    > it has.


    If you are composing off line your modem, cable or otherwise, does
    not have a FQDN. My adsl modem/router/firewall has a single
    address for long periods, but can change unexpectedly. I'm not
    sure how I could go about finding my current IP address or its
    human readable equivalent for each and every Message_ID.

    I have _probably_ registered the FQDN psd.motzarella.org, for free.
    That FQDN can go in my /etc/leafnode/config file. (I am yet to
    receive a confirming email from www.motzarella.org.) That is
    what I have been referring to as a "fake" FQDN. It is world
    wide unique to me (assuming that everyone follows the rules)
    but is not resolvable.

    My computer could then be; off line, on dial up, on adsl, or
    connected to both dial up and adsl to two different ISPs at
    the same time - neither of which is called Motzarella. It would
    be a silly arrangement, but valid.

    >>My bad. I've been told before, GST = goods and services tax.
    >>
    >>UTC and Atomic Time are the two times that are important.

    >
    > UTC - yes. TAI is only used by the scientific community. People seem
    > to be unaware there are a huge number of timezones in the world.
    >
    > [compton ~]$ wc -l time.2007k/time.zone.names
    > 396 time.2007k/time.zone.names
    > [compton ~]$ awk '{ print $NF }' time.2007k/time.zone.names | sort -u |
    > [column
    > -10:00 -3:00 -6:00 -9:30 11:00 13:00 3:00 5:00 6:30
    > 9:00
    > -11:00 -3:30 -7:00 0:00 11:30 14:00 3:30 5:30 7:00
    > 9:30
    > -1:00 -4:00 -8:00 10:00 12:00 1:00 4:00 5:45 8:00
    > -2:00 -5:00 -9:00 10:30 12:45 2:00 4:30 6:00 8:45
    > [compton ~]$ find /usr/share/zoneinfo -type f | wc -l
    > 411
    > [compton ~]$
    >
    > time.zone.names was created from the tzdata2007k sourcefiles. There's
    > 38 time offsets, but only 26 letters ;-)
    >
    >>That sound reasonable, but having a "date" field and including the
    >>date into the message_ID seems redundant.

    >
    > The "Date:" header is required by the various RFCs, Above, the format
    > of the date component of the LHS isn't specified, and could easily be
    > a hex representation of time_t (seconds since the UNIX epoch).
    >
    >>> I imagine the first 256 bits out of /dev/random might do. ;->

    >>
    >>Given that pseudo random number generators are much easier
    >>to build than real random number generators I would recommend
    >>against that.

    >
    > It got trimmed, but that was referring to generating a RHS part during
    > the software installation.


    OK, but random (or worse pseudo random) does not guarantee unique.

    > Old guy


    --
    sig goes here...
    Peter D.

  16. Re: FQDN for Leafnode SOLUTION

    On Tue, 08 Jan 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.mandriva, in article
    <7kab55-9mh.ln1@psd.news.gnode.com.au>, Peter D. wrote:

    >Moe Trin wrote:


    >Oh for the good old days when everyone knew that the system
    >administrator was that god-like high priest in a white coat
    >and glasses so thick that they were bullet proof


    Our system administrator tends to wear all black, and lacks the
    glasses. Only thing he's missing is the chain-saw.

    >I'm rambling, aren't I?


    Yup ;-)

    >> (But then, think about the problem of coming up with a unique but
    >> usable names in a sub-domain with over 2000 hosts. My users at work
    >> manage to do so.)

    >
    >Are you the demi-god, with the power to enforce?


    No, I'm the network admin - I haven't been registrar in 15+ years.
    We provide guidance for our users - the hostnames _TEND_ to follow
    themes of one kind or another - names of beers, wines, coins, pastas,
    birds (last I looked, there were well over a hundred themes in use),
    and show the user how to use tools to grep (with wild cards) the
    zonefiles. We also require two alternate hostnames on each request
    for registration. When I was doing that job, I don't recall getting
    that many requests for names I couldn't approve. About 5 years ago,
    we got a department manager who insisted on coded names in her group
    (s for server, w for workstation, five digits for room number, and two
    letters for something else) - that idea went away after she hosed a
    couple of her own servers by typ0ing the hostname... hmmm, maybe
    names of flowers and trees might be a better idea.

    >What would be wrong with a LHS of a time stamp and a sequential
    >message count? (Assuming unique RHS.)


    Probably nothing - what's the resolution of your timestamp, and how
    fast can you post?

    >> Though other algorithms will work, it is
    >> RECOMMENDED that the right hand side contain some domain identifier
    >> (either of the host itself or otherwise) such that the generator of
    >> the message identifier can guarantee the uniqueness of the left hand
    >> side within the scope of that domain.
    >>
    >> Notice the last sentence.

    >
    >I haven't read that before, but it makes sense. "Guarantee" is a bit
    >of a problem if there happens to be even one bozo on the 'net doing
    >something wrong.


    Yeah, but this is assuming (as all RFCs do) that everyone is playing by
    the rules. If the RHS is unique, duplicate LHS are no matter. If the
    RHS is using some other scheme you may run into a problem. When the
    graybeards were setting up these various concepts, recall that even
    SLIP (RFC1055) wasn't that common. For the user who was not at "the"
    computer, they were likely at a serial terminal of some kind, and as
    far as the Internet was concerned, they were just another user on "the"
    computer (check the dates on RFC0931 and 1413) and it had it's own
    FQDN. Thus, the suggestion that the RHS was to be (at least) based on
    the FQDN was reasonable (or at the very least, not unrealistic).

    >There are some instructions from Matthias Andree (the Leafnode author)
    >but they are not included in the leafnode rpm. A packaging error?
    >Here is a link, .


    Which to me, isn't very helpful. It's a reasonable description of why,
    but not how. If you have a registered domain - yeah, that's fine, but
    if you don't he has three items:

    news.individual.de or news.individual.net

    T-Online

    Ask your network administrator or your Internet service provider.
    Your local network administrator can assign you a domain to use
    for Message-IDs.
    Your Internet service provider may have reserved a special sub
    domain for the sole purpose of letting users create their own
    unique Message-IDs.

    I don't think I've ever encountered the later.

    >> In twentyfive years on the Internet (1983), I don't think I've never
    >> encountered this. Domain names are not usernames.

    >
    >Twentyfive years on the Internet and you've never encountered a
    >competent ISP? ;-) Sad, but believable.


    Very few. Most staff I speak to can't even _spell_ IP, never mind
    know what it might mean. And it's so much fun to catch the new guy
    on the hell-desk when I call in to report a problem they are having
    (or causing) and he asks when was the last time I rebooted. "Well,
    lessee... 'uptime' says it was months ago". Did you hear
    that CLUNK as their jaw hits the floor?

    >Or did you mean user names as domain names?


    That's really not very common, and in todays paranoia and spam-laden
    world, not very likely. Heck, the usernames I have at four ISPs are
    all generated from /dev/urandom (piped to mimencode or uuencode) just
    to avoid the phonebook version of a dictionary attack by spammers.

    >web site at


    web page is not hostname.

    >Alphalink used to offer what they called "partial domain" hosting.
    >If I had of paid a little more I could have had my home page at
    >.


    Many ISPs allow/provide the web page option, but I don't see that
    much of the username.ISP.tld construct. It's easy enough to do.

    >Chariot does not seem to offer partial domain hosting, although
    >both Alphalink and Chariot offer(ed) "full domain hosting" for
    >addresses of the form, <http://[your registered name].com.au>.


    I have _no_ idea how many hosting services there are in the world.
    I've got over 300 of them in the firewall block lists alone because
    of non-responded abuse complaints.

    >I knew at the time that psd.alphalink.com.au was not in use,
    >or available to anyone else, because Alphalink was trying to
    >sell it to me.


    Not unreasonable.

    >Partial domain hosting seems to have fallen out of fashion.
    >I just googled "partial domain hosting" and only got two hits.


    That may just be a search term problem - I know that both the local
    telco and cable-TV provider offered small-business accounts (at a mere
    20 times the cost of a residential account), but they were all
    business_name@ISP.tld, and they did mail as user.business_name@ISP.tld
    (I vaguely recall it was limited to something like ten usernames). For
    the most part, the minimum business setup is a full domain, with the
    web page (what more could you possibly need) hosted by some hosting
    service, and the mail forwarded to your residential account (if they
    aren't doing POP or IMAP).

    >If you are composing off line your modem, cable or otherwise, does
    >not have a FQDN. My adsl modem/router/firewall has a single
    >address for long periods, but can change unexpectedly. I'm not
    >sure how I could go about finding my current IP address or its
    >human readable equivalent for each and every Message_ID.


    There are a number of services - generally web pages - where you can
    connect and it returns the IP and possibly even hostname you are
    connecting from. Problem: There are quite a number of providers who
    haven't figured out how to provide rDNS, and most of the rest are
    returning a generic address (hostname might return the in-addr.arpa
    name, or dot.ted.quad.ISP.tld). Both of those get your mail server
    blocked/refused, although the later would allow you to form the RHS
    of a Message-ID.

    >That is what I have been referring to as a "fake" FQDN. It is world
    >wide unique to me (assuming that everyone follows the rules) but is
    >not resolvable.
    >
    >My computer could then be; off line, on dial up, on adsl, or
    >connected to both dial up and adsl to two different ISPs at
    >the same time - neither of which is called Motzarella. It would
    >be a silly arrangement, but valid.


    I'm not sure how reliable it would be. Certainly it would be a near
    zero cost type of thing - the provider need only set up a sub-domain
    like "phony.ISP.tld", and hand out "unique.phony.ISP.tld" to all and
    sundry - but if the names are going to be unique, there is a finite
    cost in "man-seconds" and disk-space (to retain the records). And
    there is nothing that would prevent some other user from using the
    name (unlike a real hostname).

    [using /dev/random to create RHS]

    >> It got trimmed, but that was referring to generating a RHS part during
    >> the software installation.

    >
    >OK, but random (or worse pseudo random) does not guarantee unique.


    256 bits of /dev/random? No - not guaranteed, but the odds would be
    pretty good. That's 51 caseless letters give or take.

    Old guy

  17. Re: FQDN for Leafnode SOLUTION

    on Wednesday 09 January 2008 11:25
    in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.mandriva
    Moe Trin wrote:

    > On Tue, 08 Jan 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.mandriva, in
    > article <7kab55-9mh.ln1@psd.news.gnode.com.au>, Peter D. wrote:
    >
    >>Moe Trin wrote:


    [snip]
    >>What would be wrong with a LHS of a time stamp and a sequential
    >>message count? (Assuming unique RHS.)

    >
    > Probably nothing - what's the resolution of your timestamp, and how
    > fast can you post?


    In general, computers are really good at counting. I would be
    prepared to trust the count part of the LHS for a given installation.
    The date part of the LHS only has to have enough resolution to
    distinguish between re-installations.

    >>> Though other algorithms will work, it is
    >>> RECOMMENDED that the right hand side contain some domain identifier
    >>> (either of the host itself or otherwise) such that the generator of
    >>> the message identifier can guarantee the uniqueness of the left hand
    >>> side within the scope of that domain.
    >>>
    >>> Notice the last sentence.

    >>
    >>I haven't read that before, but it makes sense. "Guarantee" is a bit
    >>of a problem if there happens to be even one bozo on the 'net doing
    >>something wrong.

    >
    > Yeah, but this is assuming (as all RFCs do) that everyone is playing by
    > the rules. If the RHS is unique, duplicate LHS are no matter. If the
    > RHS is using some other scheme you may run into a problem. When the
    > graybeards were setting up these various concepts, recall that even
    > SLIP (RFC1055) wasn't that common. For the user who was not at "the"
    > computer, they were likely at a serial terminal of some kind, and as
    > far as the Internet was concerned, they were just another user on "the"
    > computer (check the dates on RFC0931 and 1413) and it had it's own
    > FQDN. Thus, the suggestion that the RHS was to be (at least) based on
    > the FQDN was reasonable (or at the very least, not unrealistic).
    >
    >>There are some instructions from Matthias Andree (the Leafnode author)
    >>but they are not included in the leafnode rpm. A packaging error?
    >>Here is a link, .

    >
    > Which to me, isn't very helpful. It's a reasonable description of why,
    > but not how. If you have a registered domain - yeah, that's fine, but
    > if you don't he has three items:
    >
    > news.individual.de or news.individual.net
    >
    > T-Online
    >
    > Ask your network administrator or your Internet service provider.
    > Your local network administrator can assign you a domain to use
    > for Message-IDs.
    > Your Internet service provider may have reserved a special sub
    > domain for the sole purpose of letting users create their own
    > unique Message-IDs.
    >
    > I don't think I've ever encountered the later.


    The instructions helped me work out how things were supposed to
    work and what my ISP should do. My ISP wasn't interested and
    probably didn't understand the problem, but I was able to get
    a working solution anyway.

    >>> In twentyfive years on the Internet (1983), I don't think I've never
    >>> encountered this. Domain names are not usernames.

    >>
    >>Twentyfive years on the Internet and you've never encountered a
    >>competent ISP? ;-) Sad, but believable.

    >
    > Very few. Most staff I speak to can't even _spell_ IP, never mind
    > know what it might mean. And it's so much fun to catch the new guy
    > on the hell-desk when I call in to report a problem they are having
    > (or causing) and he asks when was the last time I rebooted. "Well,
    > lessee... 'uptime' says it was months ago". Did you hear
    > that CLUNK as their jaw hits the floor?
    >
    >>Or did you mean user names as domain names?

    >
    > That's really not very common,


    I guess it is uncommon.

    > and in todays paranoia and spam-laden
    > world, not very likely. Heck, the usernames I have at four ISPs are
    > all generated from /dev/urandom (piped to mimencode or uuencode) just
    > to avoid the phonebook version of a dictionary attack by spammers.
    >
    >>web site at

    >
    > web page is not hostname.


    I was just illustrating how they worked.

    >>Alphalink used to offer what they called "partial domain" hosting.
    >>If I had of paid a little more I could have had my home page at
    >>.

    >
    > Many ISPs allow/provide the web page option, but I don't see that
    > much of the username.ISP.tld construct. It's easy enough to do.
    >
    >>Chariot does not seem to offer partial domain hosting, although
    >>both Alphalink and Chariot offer(ed) "full domain hosting" for
    >>addresses of the form, <http://[your registered name].com.au>.

    >
    > I have _no_ idea how many hosting services there are in the world.
    > I've got over 300 of them in the firewall block lists alone because
    > of non-responded abuse complaints.
    >
    >>I knew at the time that psd.alphalink.com.au was not in use,
    >>or available to anyone else, because Alphalink was trying to
    >>sell it to me.

    >
    > Not unreasonable.
    >
    >>Partial domain hosting seems to have fallen out of fashion.
    >>I just googled "partial domain hosting" and only got two hits.

    >
    > That may just be a search term problem - I know that both the local
    > telco and cable-TV provider offered small-business accounts (at a mere
    > 20 times the cost of a residential account), but they were all
    > business_name@ISP.tld, and they did mail as user.business_name@ISP.tld
    > (I vaguely recall it was limited to something like ten usernames). For
    > the most part, the minimum business setup is a full domain, with the
    > web page (what more could you possibly need) hosted by some hosting
    > service, and the mail forwarded to your residential account (if they
    > aren't doing POP or IMAP).
    >
    >>If you are composing off line your modem, cable or otherwise, does
    >>not have a FQDN. My adsl modem/router/firewall has a single
    >>address for long periods, but can change unexpectedly. I'm not
    >>sure how I could go about finding my current IP address or its
    >>human readable equivalent for each and every Message_ID.

    >
    > There are a number of services - generally web pages - where you can
    > connect and it returns the IP and possibly even hostname you are
    > connecting from. Problem: There are quite a number of providers who
    > haven't figured out how to provide rDNS, and most of the rest are
    > returning a generic address (hostname might return the in-addr.arpa
    > name, or dot.ted.quad.ISP.tld). Both of those get your mail server
    > blocked/refused, although the later would allow you to form the RHS
    > of a Message-ID.
    >
    >>That is what I have been referring to as a "fake" FQDN. It is world
    >>wide unique to me (assuming that everyone follows the rules) but is
    >>not resolvable.
    >>
    >>My computer could then be; off line, on dial up, on adsl, or
    >>connected to both dial up and adsl to two different ISPs at
    >>the same time - neither of which is called Motzarella. It would
    >>be a silly arrangement, but valid.

    >
    > I'm not sure how reliable it would be. Certainly it would be a near
    > zero cost type of thing - the provider need only set up a sub-domain
    > like "phony.ISP.tld", and hand out "unique.phony.ISP.tld" to all and
    > sundry - but if the names are going to be unique, there is a finite
    > cost in "man-seconds" and disk-space (to retain the records). And
    > there is nothing that would prevent some other user from using the
    > name (unlike a real hostname).


    Is there anything stopping everyone using microsoft.com in the
    RHS of their message_IDs (apart from it being really silly)?

    > [using /dev/random to create RHS]
    >
    >>> It got trimmed, but that was referring to generating a RHS part during
    >>> the software installation.

    >>
    >>OK, but random (or worse pseudo random) does not guarantee unique.

    >
    > 256 bits of /dev/random? No - not guaranteed, but the odds would be
    > pretty good. That's 51 caseless letters give or take.


    Using big random numbers is probably more reliable, but philosophically
    I like the idea of "doing it right".


    --
    sig goes here...
    Peter D.

  18. Re: FQDN for Leafnode SOLUTION

    On Thu, 10 Jan 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.mandriva, in article
    <500h55-e0e.ln1@psd.motzarella.org>, Peter D. wrote:

    >Moe Trin wrote:


    >>> What would be wrong with a LHS of a time stamp and a sequential
    >>> message count? (Assuming unique RHS.)

    >>
    >> Probably nothing - what's the resolution of your timestamp, and how
    >> fast can you post?

    >
    >In general, computers are really good at counting. I would be
    >prepared to trust the count part of the LHS for a given installation.
    >The date part of the LHS only has to have enough resolution to
    >distinguish between re-installations.


    I'm not trying to be silly, but I'd rather have the time with a bit more
    resolution - minutes at least - and have the count start from the
    existence of this instance of the posting daemon. The size of the
    message ID field isn't currently specified (other than the general
    limit of section 2.2.3 of RFC2822), so including a 32 bit time_t and
    perhaps a 4 bit message number allows "unique" to 16 messages per
    second for a Very Long Time(tm) in 9 hex characters.

    [leafnode.sourceforge.net/doc_en/README-FQDN.html - no registered domain]

    >> I don't think I've ever encountered the later.

    >
    >The instructions helped me work out how things were supposed to
    >work and what my ISP should do. My ISP wasn't interested and
    >probably didn't understand the problem, but I was able to get
    >a working solution anyway.


    I can understand that - the help-droid you spoke to isn't used to the
    concept of message-IDs, and why your software is having a problem.
    After all, he's never heard of it before, and there is nothing in his
    script-book ("customer has this problem, tell him to do that") about
    it. Recall that most users who are accessing news are doing so with
    some form of on-line tool - most often Lookout, or some web browser,
    and "they don't have this problem".

    >> And there is nothing that would prevent some other user from using
    >> the name (unlike a real hostname).

    >
    >Is there anything stopping everyone using microsoft.com in the
    >RHS of their message_IDs (apart from it being really silly)?


    No - nothing at all. Now it may be the newsgroups I scan, but a quick
    grep through my news spool doesn't show a single 'Message-ID' or
    'References' header with that string, and I'd expect anyone posting
    from microsoft would be posting with a FQDN in the RHS, not just the
    domain name. Further, I expect their non-public hostnames to be
    something in the 'hostname.subdomain.microsoft.com' form/style. They
    certainly have enough employees that they wouldn't be using the
    hostname.microsoft.com construct - you run into unique hostname
    problems after a few thousand hosts.

    Thus, it's likely that anyone using microsoft.com _alone_ on the RHS
    is going to be tripping over others who are using that name without
    authorization. I really doubt it would conflict with any posts that
    are really from someone at microsoft. That also assumes that there
    are individuals posting from there. My company has a policy against
    posting with the company username (never mind posting from company
    systems for anything not explicitly company specific - and I'm not
    designated as a "company spokesman", so that's out).

    >> [using /dev/random to create RHS]


    >Using big random numbers is probably more reliable, but philosophically
    >I like the idea of "doing it right".


    It's probably a lot safer - while 50 random letters is a huge pool of
    random possibilities (something like 1.16 x 10^77) someone has warned
    that "Ah, but million-to-one chances come up nine times out of ten..."
    especially when the results are going to be bad for you ;-)

    Old guy

  19. Re: FQDN for Leafnode SOLUTION

    On 2008-01-03, Bit Twister wrote:
    > On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 06:01:05 +0000 (UTC), Bit Twister wrote:
    >> How do I get rid of the must have FQDN problem.
    >> /etc/cron.daily/texpire causes

    >
    >
    > Short answer, changed nodes' FQDN
    > from wb.home.invalid
    > to wb.home.bogus
    >
    >
    > Long answer:
    > You can get the message because of the following test snippets found
    > in the source code. Thanks to David W. Hodgins for that research.
    >
    > Do a
    > host $(hostname --fqdn)
    >
    > and if the parts of the results match any of the following
    > "localhost"
    > "127."
    > "linux.local"
    > "example.org"
    > "example.com"
    > "example.net"
    > ".example"
    > ".invalid"
    > ".local"
    > ".localdomain"
    > ".localhost"
    > ".test"
    > ".site"
    >
    > you get something like
    > Leafnode must have a fully-qualified and globally unique domain name,
    > not just "wb.home.invalid".
    > Edit your /etc/hosts file to add a unique, fully qualified domain name.
    > "localhost.localdomain" or thereabouts will not work;
    > it's qualified, but not unique.
    > Please see the README-FQDN file for details.


    Sorry to come in late in this thread.

    I couldn't get Leafnode to install on a system with a name ending in
    ..invalid (and I think some other programs were also reluctant to tolerate
    that) so I changed my hostnames to end in .private which is accepted by
    all the software I've installed since. If that name does leak out onto
    the internet, it won't resolve and probably never will unless TLDs start
    to take the form of character strings longer than three.

    I do not use the local system's hostname as the FQDN for usenet MIDs; for
    that I exploit Individual.net's permission to create an FQDN using their
    domain name and my account number.

    Noffle's method of constructing the left-hand side of MIDs seems to be
    along the lines of 'exact current time plus a unique thing' which is
    probably as reliable as any - but the result is a rather long MID, of
    course. (I'm using Noffle to generate MIDs on this system so this article
    provides an example).

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

  20. Re: FQDN for Leafnode SOLUTION

    On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:52:10 +0000, Whiskers wrote:
    >
    > I couldn't get Leafnode to install on a system with a name ending in
    > .invalid


    Should have installed. You can fake it out by changing hostname in
    /etc/leafnode/config to something it will accept and still leave the
    node's FQDN whatever you like.

    > (and I think some other programs were also reluctant to tolerate that)


    If you happen to remember any of their names, I would like to know.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast