Hallo Thorsten. Thorsten Glaser wrote in <[email protected]\ .org>: |>I have no idea of tor except that i have tor-control-spec.txt and |>tor-socks-extensions.txt since 2017 locally. And yes i have even | |I haven’t, maybe I should, but I haven’t really used Tor anyway. | |>read it once by then. There is a RESOLVE (plus RESOLVE_PTR) |>extension (and maybe more) there, but since lynx is a browser not |>a DNS resolver i think this is not of interest for it. The patch | |Erm… there is‽ The browser needs to resolve hostnames, and if a |proxy is used there should be the option to let the proxy do that. | |In the case of Tor this is needed for both functionality (their |extra TLD) and anonymity. | |>uses the RFC standardized way of passing the hostname we want to |>connect to for real to the SOCKS5 proxy, it will perform the DNS |>lookup for us, and report it back. So the only DNS lookup which |>lynx performs itself is the resolution of the socks proxy address. | |Ah, good. And if that’s given as numeric v4/v6 address, even that |is elided, I assume.
Well i'd say yes. I have refrained from looking deeper into the Lynx DNS machinery, which has even more compatibility than only gethostname / getaddrinfo if i recall correctly. But i would assume that the C library tries to decode a hostname as an IP address first, and simply uses it if it is one already. (For our purpose of resolving a hostname to IPv4 or IPv6 at least.) Looking into my old resolver i see this is even a standardized, in RFC 1123, section 2.1: the user is allowed to enter an IP address directly. (I had forgotten this is even standardized!) --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt) _______________________________________________ Lynx-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lynx-dev
