On Sunday 21 January 2007 03:28, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
> > On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 21:42:44 + (UTC),
> > "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> emaste> I think an address like 1.002.3.4 is bizarre, but is our
> inet_pton incorrect emaste> in rejecting it?
>
> >> The change was
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 21:42:44 + (UTC),
> "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
emaste> I think an address like 1.002.3.4 is bizarre, but is our inet_pton
incorrect
emaste> in rejecting it?
>>
>> The change was taken from BIND9. The following is from BIND9's
>> CHANGES:
>>
>>
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 14:28:07 -0500
Ed Maste <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
emaste> I think an address like 1.002.3.4 is bizarre, but is our inet_pton
incorrect
emaste> in rejecting it?
The change was taken from BIND9. The following is from BIND9's
Hi,
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 14:28:07 -0500
> Ed Maste <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
emaste> I think an address like 1.002.3.4 is bizarre, but is our inet_pton
incorrect
emaste> in rejecting it?
The change was taken from BIND9. The following is from BIND9's
CHANGES:
935. [bug]
It turns out an application at work is passing an IP address to inet_pton
that is formatted slightly strangely; it ends up being something of the form
1.002.3.4. In 4.x inet_pton reports this as valid and returns 1.2.3.4. (I
also checked that it's just ignoring the leading zeros, not parsing the
