Debian Bug report logs - #492422
postfix-policyd-spf-perl: should use example.com and similar domain names in examples

Reply or subscribe to this bug.

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: postfix-policyd-spf-perl: should use example.com and similar domain names in examples

Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 09:43:41 +1000

Package: postfix-policyd-spf-perl
Version: 2.005-2
Severity: normal

http://www.rfc.net/rfc2606.txt

RFC 2606 describes the use of example.com and similar domains.  Instead of
using some.domain.tld in the man page it should use official example domains.

The example in the man pages uses three domains, they could be replaced with
example.com, example.net, and example.org to give a result that will never
cause unexpected results if used on the net and which I believe will more
clearly convey the intent of the example.

http://www.rfc.net/rfc3330.html

Also the IP address 1.2.3.4 should not be used.  I suggest  using one of the
private address ranges from RFC 3330 (10.0.0.0/8 is the most popular).

Message #10 received at 492422@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>

To: Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>, 492422@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#492422: postfix-policyd-spf-perl: should use example.com and similar domain names in examples

Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:26:56 -0400

On Friday 25 July 2008 19:43, Russell Coker wrote:
> Package: postfix-policyd-spf-perl
> Version: 2.005-2
> Severity: normal
>
> http://www.rfc.net/rfc2606.txt
>
> RFC 2606 describes the use of example.com and similar domains.  Instead of
> using some.domain.tld in the man page it should use official example
> domains.
>
> The example in the man pages uses three domains, they could be replaced
> with example.com, example.net, and example.org to give a result that will
> never cause unexpected results if used on the net and which I believe will
> more clearly convey the intent of the example.

SInce .tld (the tld used in the documentation) does not actually exist, there 
is no potential for harm.  RFC 2606 is an IETF BCP and not an actual standard 
of any kind.  The example in the man page is from the original upstream 
documentation and has been distributed this way for years, including being 
shipped with the Postfix source for several releases.

I don't think changing these would provide any meaningful benifit and would 
create divergence from upstream.  This topic recently came up on the IETF 
main list in a slightly different context:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg51960.html

If I were writing documenation from scratch, I might use such domains, but I 
think that they are, if anything less clear than the current examples.

> http://www.rfc.net/rfc3330.html
>
> Also the IP address 1.2.3.4 should not be used.  I suggest  using one of
> the private address ranges from RFC 3330 (10.0.0.0/8 is the most popular).

RFC 3330 is informational and not a standard of any kind.  Since the IP addess 
used in the example does not and can not cause any network traffic related to 
the IP number, I don't see any point in changing it.  Using a private address 
actually has potential for confusion here because people new to SPF sometimes 
put their private addresses in their SPF records thinking they need to do so.  
Using it in the example would re-inforce that belief.

At this point, I'm inclined to won't fix this bug, but I'll wait and see if 
you have any more compelling points to make.

Message #15 received at 492422@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>

To: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>

Cc: 492422@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#492422: postfix-policyd-spf-perl: should use example.com and similar domain names in examples

Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 10:44:48 +1000

On Saturday 26 July 2008 10:26, Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> wrote:
> > The example in the man pages uses three domains, they could be replaced
> > with example.com, example.net, and example.org to give a result that will
> > never cause unexpected results if used on the net and which I believe
> > will more clearly convey the intent of the example.
>
> SInce .tld (the tld used in the documentation) does not actually exist,
> there is no potential for harm.

Unless of course they create such a TLD.  There are currently plans in 
progress to allow organisations to register new TLDs.  If the price was low 
enough I expect that tld. would be registered for the same reason as yoursite 
DOT com.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5576995&postID=7061400453092952166&isPopup=true

Above is an example of a blog post that was changed after I pointed out their 
inadvertent advertising for yoursite.

> RFC 2606 is an IETF BCP and not an actual 
> standard of any kind.  The example in the man page is from the original
> upstream documentation and has been distributed this way for years,
> including being shipped with the Postfix source for several releases.

I think that Debian packages should match Best Current Practice.

> I don't think changing these would provide any meaningful benifit and would
> create divergence from upstream.  This topic recently came up on the IETF
> main list in a slightly different context:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg51960.html

That's an entirely different context.  At least half that issue seems to be 
procedural and concerning whether the DISCUSS blocking mechanism is 
appropriate.  Another thing is that they refer to examples that are 25 years 
old and which also use the arpa. TLD (which is controlled by some of the same 
people who are involved in writing RFCs - so they can make sure that there is 
no conflict).

> If I were writing documenation from scratch, I might use such domains, but
> I think that they are, if anything less clear than the current examples.

With the helo-name of some.domain.tld it is not clear whether that maps to 
something like coker.com.au or something like mailwash7.pair.com.

> > http://www.rfc.net/rfc3330.html
> >
> > Also the IP address 1.2.3.4 should not be used.  I suggest  using one of
> > the private address ranges from RFC 3330 (10.0.0.0/8 is the most
> > popular).
>
> RFC 3330 is informational and not a standard of any kind.  Since the IP
> addess used in the example does not and can not cause any network traffic
> related to the IP number, I don't see any point in changing it.  Using a
> private address actually has potential for confusion here because people
> new to SPF sometimes put their private addresses in their SPF records
> thinking they need to do so. Using it in the example would re-inforce that
> belief.

If people are going to copy addresses from examples into their own records it 
is better that they be private addresses (which can be recognised and removed 
easily) than public addresses owned by someone else.

Message #20 received at 492422@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>

To: 492422@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Will stick with following the Postfix docs

Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:29:16 -0400

Since the examples you're asking to have changed are pulled straight from the 
Postfix documentation, I'm going to leave them.  If Postfix changes, I'll 
update it.

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.