Re: [RFC] Change checkdnsrr() $type argument behavior
| From: | Michael Wallner | Date: | Tue, 23 Sep 2014 07:38:34 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] Change checkdnsrr() $type argument behavior | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-77506@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On 2014-09-23 09:30, Kris Craig wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Michael Wallner <mike@php.net
> <mailto:mike@php.net>> wrote:
>
> On 2014-09-23 06:00, Sanford Whiteman wrote:
> >> What would happen is it'd throw an E_DEPRECATED for at least the
> remainder
> >> of 5.x, then throw the usual E_WARNING for a missing argument
> starting in
> >> 7.x with no default.
> >
> > Sounds OK to me now that I've noticed this:
> >
> > https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=68081
> >
> > Pretty sure that's a sane report, and it's enough to make me say
> > checkdnsrr() doesn't work now at all.
>
>
> Given that this function is over 16 years old [1] and guessing that it
> was used as a simple kind of email domain verification, I think
> checkdnsrr() works as expected [2], [3].
>
> [1]
> http://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=90222489331812&w=2
> [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2821#section-5
> [3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321#section-5.1
>
> --
> Regards,
> Mike
>
>
> Except that it doesn't work as expected because most devs (including
> myself) aren't readily familiar with posts from 1998. And even if that
> were its purpose back then, that really has no relevance today, as the
> purpose and identity of PHP itself has evolved drastically since then.
>
> If that really is a concern, though, then I would propose getting rid of
> checkdnsrr() altogether (or making it an alias of checkmxrr()) and
> creating a new general-purpose DNS lookup function that returns a
> boolean. Of course, I really don't think that's necessary since this
> stuff from 16 years ago doesn't have any meaningful bearing on how it's
> being used today by modern PHP developers.
Phew, "modern" or rather "unaware" or "uneager to research"?
Anyway, I'm done with this topic; I don't see any reason for action,
except maybe, improving related documentation.
--
Regards,
Mike