LinuxQuestions.org
Download your favorite Linux distribution at LQ ISO.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Networking
User Name
Password
Linux - Networking This forum is for any issue related to networks or networking.
Routing, network cards, OSI, etc. Anything is fair game.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 09-07-2005, 01:23 PM   #16
Tinkster
Moderator
 
Registered: Apr 2002
Location: in a fallen world
Distribution: slackware by choice, others too :} ... android.
Posts: 23,067
Blog Entries: 11

Rep: Reputation: 911Reputation: 911Reputation: 911Reputation: 911Reputation: 911Reputation: 911Reputation: 911Reputation: 911

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
 
Old 09-07-2005, 09:24 PM   #17
Matir
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 8,507

Rep: Reputation: 125Reputation: 125
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.
 
Old 09-08-2005, 12:20 AM   #18
Linux.tar.gz
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Location: Paris
Distribution: Slackware forever.
Posts: 2,397

Rep: Reputation: 92
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.
 
Old 09-08-2005, 04:59 AM   #19
FrankP
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2003
Location: Britain
Distribution: Debian, MacOSX, FreeBSD
Posts: 65

Rep: Reputation: 18
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.
 
Old 09-08-2005, 07:38 AM   #20
Matir
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 8,507

Rep: Reputation: 125Reputation: 125
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.
 
Old 09-08-2005, 09:59 AM   #21
rmic
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Aug 2005
Posts: 10

Rep: Reputation: 0
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 ...
 
Old 09-08-2005, 10:05 AM   #22
Matir
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 8,507

Rep: Reputation: 125Reputation: 125
This shouldn't work anywhere. People not following the RFCs leads to this pile of headaches.
 
Old 09-09-2005, 03:15 PM   #23
DJH584
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Aug 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Distribution: CentOS
Posts: 3

Rep: Reputation: 0
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.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Telnet : Temporary failure in name resolution : Host name lookup failure koodoo Linux - Newbie 10 02-11-2008 07:59 PM
Host name lookup failure when trying to connect to the internet jabka Linux - General 1 10-25-2005 12:15 AM
intermittent failure winPC connect internet thru ipmasq linux gateway takahaya Linux - Networking 0 05-13-2005 06:35 PM
how to check urls and stop internet urls in network gface Linux - Networking 5 03-24-2005 09:48 PM
PostScript failure result in printing failure cawwt Linux - General 2 10-01-2004 01:06 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Networking

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:26 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration