Post #1873198
2023-06-24 08:16 UTC
Replies (7)
-
@sindarina@ngmx.com 2023-06-24 08:22
The same goes for domain names; do NOT use a public domain name you do not control in your configuration, documentation, or UI language. Instead, use one of the available reserved domain names documented in RFC 2606, such as 'example.com', 'example.net', or the .example top-level domain. ❌ test.com ❌ yourdomain.com ✅ example.com ✅ yourdomain.example Pass it on to your fellow developers, designers, documentation writers, and so forth. Full RFC text is here; https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc2606/ 2/ 🧵
-
@raven667@hachyderm.io 2024-12-31 21:19
@pixelcode @sindarina 66969...nice (that may or may not be a coincidence, a giggling German is not out of the question)
-
@sindastra@chaos.social 2023-06-24 12:35
@bekopharm .local is reserved and safe, and intended to be used with mDNS (which is implemented in "Bonjour" and "Avahi" and is sometimes referred to as "zeroconf", although that's not quite the correct term). 🤓
-
@brezelradar@norden.social 2023-06-24 18:00
@bekopharm @kepstin @sindastra @sindarina And although .mail, .corp and .home were rejected as gTLD, they could still be assigned in the future, if enshittification goes forth.
-
@clacke@libranet.de 2023-06-25 09:02
@bekopharm This is the first time I hear of home.arpa. RFC: rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8375.htm… "This document specifies the behavior that is expected from the Domain Name System with regard to DNS queries for names ending with '.home.arpa.' and designates this domain as a special-use domain name. 'home.arpa.' is designated for non-unique use in residential home networks. The Home Networking Control Protocol (HNCP) is updated to use the 'home.arpa.' domain instead of '.home'." @sindarina
-
@xarvos@outerheaven.club 2023-06-24 13:00
@sindarina i also find it not obvious that 1.2.3.4 is supposedly an IP address
-
@miki@dragonscave.space 2023-06-24 17:34
@sindarina Unless the config field is particularly security sensitive, I’d still use something like 1.2.3.4, just because it makes it obvious that the address is an example and needs to be changed. For users who don’t know about these ranges, AKA me from two minutes ago, 192.0.2.4 looks like an existing IP address, which may or may not point at a reasonable default / vendor-provided server, and so it isn’t obvious whether it should be touched. I would say that using those addresses is a tradeoff, and it should be considered how likely 1.2.3.4 is to ever become malicious, and what the consequences would be for a particular application. Another interesting way to solve this is to use 123.456.123.456, as that is not a valid address.