Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: A comment about RFC 3484 address selection]

2007-09-24 Thread Thijs Kinkhorst
On Tue, September 25, 2007 03:21, Kurt Roeckx wrote: >>> FWIW, I believe non-subscriber posts are accepted to the list if >>> they're sent by way of the BTS. > > As far as I know, if you're not subscribed you should sign your message. Just for clarity: this is not the case although the committee w

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: A comment about RFC 3484 address selection]

2007-09-24 Thread Kurt Roeckx
> Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:48:06 +0200 > From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: A comment about RFC 3484 address selection > > > FWIW, I believe non-subscriber posts are accepted

Re: glibc's getaddrinfo() sort order

2007-09-24 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 11:23:19AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > FreeBSD 6.2, Jan 2007: stable, but not rule 9 > Fedora Core 5, March 2005: stable > Ubuntu 7.04, April 2007: rule 9 > Debian 3.1, sarge (June 2005): not stable > OS X 10.4 Tiger (April 2005): not stable > Windows 2003: stable, but not

[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: A comment about RFC 3484 address selection]

2007-09-24 Thread Clint Adams
Per request of author. - Forwarded message from Juliusz Chroboczek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:48:06 +0200 From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: A comment

Re: glibc's getaddrinfo() sort order

2007-09-24 Thread Florian Weimer
* Anthony Towns: > FreeBSD 6.2, Jan 2007: stable, but not rule 9 > > 10:00 {'96.96.96.96': 1000} > 10:00 what os? > 10:00 Python 2.4.3 (#2, Nov 8 2006, 23:56:15) > 10:00 FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE-p5 i386 SMP-GENERIC > 10:34 aj: it was 172.16.x.x, nat'd behind 203.y.y.y On FreeBSD 6.2,

Re: Bug#438179: glibc's getaddrinfo() sort order

2007-09-24 Thread Ian Jackson
Clint Adams writes ("Bug#438179: glibc's getaddrinfo() sort order"): > On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 11:18:00AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > COMMON BEHAVIOUR ON TODAY'S INTERNET IS THAT IMPLEMENTED BY > > GETHOSTBYNAME. > > Common behavior for gethostbyname() on today's Internet is that > implemented c

Bug#438179: glibc's getaddrinfo() sort order

2007-09-24 Thread Clint Adams
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 11:18:00AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > COMMON BEHAVIOUR ON TODAY'S INTERNET IS THAT IMPLEMENTED BY > GETHOSTBYNAME. Common behavior for gethostbyname() on today's Internet is that implemented commonly in gethostbyname() . > How many times do I have to explain this ? getad

Re: glibc's getaddrinfo() sort order

2007-09-24 Thread Ian Jackson
Anthony Towns writes ("Re: glibc's getaddrinfo() sort order"): > Stability is useful for any case where the servers hosting a particular > might be out of sync with each other; eg, if stability could be assumed > we'd have less errors where an invocation of "apt-get update" chooses one > mirror, an