Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:77425
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.214.180 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAEZPtU48TxciS4ES5GVpn40wj_CXQWrABNjpN1BBV8jYRJdQjg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKOpQSyiCDEUDGhn50RuLL7ox_TJCCjD=4=qZ68OqbA5krXWkA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU48TxciS4ES5GVpn40wj_CXQWrABNjpN1BBV8jYRJdQjg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 00:07:04 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKOpQSw55PoiENViCrUKENZ4d-xUbjQJrvW5kuyhxfkuXN05JQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals list <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b47201217ce800503a21923
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Change checkdnsrr() $type argument behavior
From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig)

--047d7b47201217ce800503a21923
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sep 21, 2014 11:52 PM, "Pierre Joye" <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> hi Kris,
>
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 4:15 AM, Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Per discussion in an earlier thread.  Here's the RFC:
> >
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/checkdnsrr-default-type
> >
> >
> > Basically, this RFC seeks to make it so that PHP's checkdnsrr()
function,
> > which is most commonly used to see whether or not a hostname exists, no
> > longer restricts itself to only MX records by default.
> >
> > Though the RFC itself is a no-brainer, the more difficult question is
which
> > solution should be implemented.  The two options currently presented are
> > changing default from "MX" to "ANY", which would cause it to check all
> > records and not just MX; and getting rid of the default altogether and
> > making it so that the argument is required.
> >
> > From what I can tell, there are valid arguments to be made for both, so
I
> > would love to see some discussion/debate here regarding which solution
> > should be implemented, as I'm currently undecided.  Also please feel
free
> > to point out any areas of improvement for the RFC itself.
>
> I am not sure which problem this RFC tries to solve, do you have any
> example showing the issues please?
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Pierre
>
> @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org

It's not a bug or anything.  The problem is that the current behavior is
very counter-intuitive, not to mention unnecessary because there's already
another function dedicated to MX lookups.

At my job, we wasted a good deal of time troubleshooting what appeared to
be a weird DNS issue that turned out to just be a checkdnsrr() lookup that
was looking only for MX records because a second argument wasn't passed.  I
cannot think of any use case served by this behavior.

--Kris

--047d7b47201217ce800503a21923--