inet_pton and oddly-formatted addresses

Sat Jan 20 22:13:59 UTC 2007

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:

> Hi,
>
>>>>>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 14:28:07 -0500
>>>>>> Ed Maste <emaste at phaedrus.sandvine.ca> 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]		inet_pton failed to reject leading zeros.

well, maybe they were wrong? How does one get in contact with their
bugs database these days? Is comp.protocols.dns.bind still a good
place to discuss these things?

-- 
Bjoern A. Zeeb				bzeeb at Zabbadoz dot NeT