ke 11.12.2024 klo 14.18 Daniel Gröber (d...@darkboxed.org) kirjoitti: > got this weird bounce saying SPF failed becuese 2a0b:5c81:1c1::38 > (lihamylly.iki.fi.) isn't allowed to send my domain. Well yeah - it isn't > :-) > > Seems some internal forwarding may be botched.
Sigh. Yes, it does that from time to time. > From: "Daniel Gröber" <d...@darkboxed.org> > To: "Martin-Éric Racine" <martin-eric.rac...@iki.fi>, 1089...@bugs.debian.org > Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 13:00:25 +0100 > Subject: Re: Bug#1089598: dhcpcd-base: Upgrade from bookworm > (isc-dhcp-client) breaks DDNS > Hi Martin, > > On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 08:36:05PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote: > > Please see recently closed bugs. Someone recently requested the same > > thing. Upstream insists on shipping that option commented out because he > > feels that exposing the hostname is a privacy issue. > > It was already archived so didn't show up in a casual skim. For reference, > that's #1086119 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1086119 I've raised the issue again with upstream: https://github.com/NetworkConfiguration/dhcpcd/issues/393 Personally, I would not mind enabling it. However, I fully understand upstream's view that, on world-facing hosts, advertising the hostname does open privacy issues. > > Additionally, please point me to the release policy that would qualify > > this bug report as RC. Thanks. > > Release standards (RC bugs) https://release.debian.org/testing/rc_policy.txt > > I'm taking a liberal interpretation of what it means to "break unrelated > software" but given the nature of networking (essentially everything relies > on it) and the potential of breaking entire deployments (where > unattended-upgrades are in use) I think this is justified. We can consult > release team if you feel this is an overly broad interpretation. Your interpretation is excessive. "Misses something that the other software did" does not fulfil the requirement for RC bugs. Martin-Éric
