Bug#500572: not a bug

2011-11-21 Thread Peter van Dijk
Hello Martin, On Nov 21, 2011, at 11:19 , martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Peter van Dijk [2011.11.19.0906 > +0100]: >> If you could demonstrate that this difference exists, I would be >> happy to look deeper into the issue. > > I was about to get back into this, but I noticed that Mattijs

Bug#500572: not a bug

2011-11-21 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Peter van Dijk [2011.11.19.0906 +0100]: > If you could demonstrate that this difference exists, I would be > happy to look deeper into the issue. I was about to get back into this, but I noticed that Mattijs has since added a patch from upstream to fix this issue. Does this mean you

Bug#500572: not a bug

2011-11-19 Thread Peter van Dijk
Hello Martin, On Nov 18, 2011, at 11:34 , martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Peter van Dijk [2011.11.18.0951 > +0100]: >> the DNS packet format is binary. There is no notion of inserting >> or not inserting a zero. What you are seeing is how dig decides to >> represent an address. Other DNS-s

Bug#500572: not a bug

2011-11-18 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Peter van Dijk [2011.11.18.0951 +0100]: > the DNS packet format is binary. There is no notion of inserting > or not inserting a zero. What you are seeing is how dig decides to > represent an address. Other DNS-servers have the same "issue". I have never seen this with any other DNS-s

Bug#500572: not a bug

2011-11-18 Thread Peter van Dijk
Hello, the DNS packet format is binary. There is no notion of inserting or not inserting a zero. What you are seeing is how dig decides to represent an address. Other DNS-servers have the same "issue". I recommend closing this bug. Kind regards, Peter van Dijk (upstream maintainer) -- To UNS