Linux - Networking This forum is for any issue related to networks or networking.
Routing, network cards, OSI, etc. Anything is fair game. |
Notices |
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
Are you new to LinuxQuestions.org? Visit the following links:
Site Howto |
Site FAQ |
Sitemap |
Register Now
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
|
 |
|
09-07-2005, 01:23 PM
|
#16
|
Moderator
Registered: Apr 2002
Location: earth
Distribution: slackware by choice, others too :} ... android.
Posts: 23,067
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Matir
Some systems adhere to the RFCs and some don't. I would consider this to be a bug with DeviantArt.
|
It is. But then, there's SO many "buggy" names out there
that others did start to accept them. Ever since MS Exchange
made it into being there's heaps of hosts with an _ in the name,
too, which is COMPLETELY illegal (not just by position).
However, many MTAs have started accepting mail from
those hosts because those servers often are not only illegally
named, but also just drop bounces, and their admins are
incapable of finding out why mails from them don't arrive
at some sites. The CEO of the site with the nasty name
rings the CEO of the site that followed RFC and, voila,
another idiot has won.
Cheers,
Tink
|
|
|
09-07-2005, 09:24 PM
|
#17
|
LQ Guru
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Distribution: Debian, Arch
Posts: 8,507
Rep: 
|
Why must MS constantly redefine the standards to suit themselves? I'm not trying to slam MS, but given their position as a market leader, they've always tried to create "extensions" to RFCs and IETF standards.
|
|
|
09-08-2005, 12:20 AM
|
#18
|
Senior Member
Registered: Dec 2003
Location: Paris
Distribution: Slackware forever.
Posts: 2,534
Rep: 
|
And remember ASCII... 1 more bit and (almost) all latin languages fitted inside. A teacher told me IBM was upset against MS about this heresy. And as Tinkster said, another idiot (a HUGE one) has won.
|
|
|
09-08-2005, 04:59 AM
|
#19
|
Member
Registered: Aug 2003
Location: Britain
Distribution: AntiX, Debian, Gentoo
Posts: 65
Rep:
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Randomcasualty
But then what I don't understand is how come the person can resolve the host using the same browser which I can't resolve with? Surely if it was deviantART that was at fault then it would be the same response fro everyone, no matter which browser they tried with ?
|
It's a "bug" with DeviantArt in the sense that they are doing what they shouldn't, if we believe in following RFCs. I think the different behaviours we are seeing on our systems result from differences in the local resolver library.
First, the problem surely can't be in the upstream DNS servers, because I can ping kat1e- from my Windows laptop here but it fails from the Debian system on the same LAN, and both machines are querying the very same DNS servers.
That's why I think the difference must lie in the local resolver routine. The systems which say they can't find the domain must be filtering out what they see as a badly formed domain, before even asking the dns servers about it. The (Windows) systems which find the domain ok obviously don't care if it's badly formed, and query for it anyway.
Also, by the way, I don't think the test with dig is definitive:
Quote:
Originally posted by Matir
What it means is that your computer is capable of getting the appropriate IP address.... hrrm.
;; ANSWER SECTION:
kat1e-.deviantart.com. 86400 IN A 69.28.181.43
|
But dig can give an answer for a nonexistent subdomain. Trying dig anything-at-all.deviantart.com gives the same output as you got for kat1e-. So the computer might not be capable of getting the IP address in that case.
|
|
|
09-08-2005, 07:38 AM
|
#20
|
LQ Guru
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Distribution: Debian, Arch
Posts: 8,507
Rep: 
|
Most likely, deviantart has a record of the form:
Code:
*.deviantart.com. 86400 in A 69.28.181.43
However, I would agree that some resolvers probably pre-filter on bad domains to save traffic.
|
|
|
09-08-2005, 09:59 AM
|
#21
|
LQ Newbie
Registered: Aug 2005
Posts: 10
Rep:
|
Hi,
I know I already posted here to say it succeeded for me with Firefox under XP, but, I gave it another try it, here at work and it didn't work.
All my web traffic goes through a Novell proxy (BorderManager or something like that ... )
At home, with my squid proxy, it didn't work, and without the proxy, it works well ...
|
|
|
09-08-2005, 10:05 AM
|
#22
|
LQ Guru
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Distribution: Debian, Arch
Posts: 8,507
Rep: 
|
This shouldn't work anywhere. People not following the RFCs leads to this pile of headaches. 
|
|
|
09-09-2005, 03:15 PM
|
#23
|
LQ Newbie
Registered: Aug 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Distribution: CentOS
Posts: 3
Rep:
|
This is definitely wierd. I can get to the Deviant Art site mentioned in the first link and the Wings On Flames link but none of the others.
This then prompted my memory about something I had read elsewhere and it had to do with redirection scripting in the web site coding and optimising the site for search engines.
The answer that the person gave was this:
I notice from your server headers that your site is hosted on Linux using Apache. This means you can easily drop in an .htaccess to '301' (permanently forward) your non www domain to your www subdomain. If you need the code to do this here it is:-
create a text file called .htaccess and within it create this:-
Code:
Options +FollowSymLinks
RewriteEngine on
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} .
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www\.frenchsecrets\.co.uk [NC]
RewriteRule (.*) http://www.frenchsecrets.co.uk/$1 [R=301,L]
(I think that's correct!)
Basically it's saying, if the URL does not (!) begin (^) with www then make it so using a 301 (permanent) redirect.
Now could it be that the browsers we are using are trying to access sites that DO NOT have this coding, do not do an automatic redirect and therefore will not recognise the site, or am I talking out of my hat??
David
Last edited by DJH584; 09-09-2005 at 03:16 PM.
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:27 PM.
|
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
|
Latest Threads
LQ News
|
|