this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2025
1 points (51.2% liked)

Ye Power Trippin' Bastards

706 readers
120 users here now

This is a community in the spirit of "Am I The Asshole" where people can post their own bans from lemmy or reddit or whatever and get some feedback from others whether the ban was justified or not.

Sometimes one just wants to be able to challenge the arguments some mod made and this could be the place for that.

Posting Guidelines

All posts should follow this basic structure:

  1. Which mods/admins were being Power Tripping Bastards?
  2. What sanction did they impose (e.g. community ban, instance ban, removed comment)?
  3. Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entry (don’t de-obfuscate mod names).
  4. Provide a screenshot and explanation of the cause of the sanction (e.g. the post/comment that was removed, or got you banned).
  5. Explain why you think its unfair and how you would like the situation to be remedied.

Rules

Expect to receive feedback about your posts, they might even be negative.

Make sure you follow this instance's code of conduct. In other words we won't allow bellyaching about being sanctioned for hate speech or bigotry.

YTPB matrix channel: For real-time discussions about bastards or to appeal mod actions in YPTB itself.

Some acronyms you might see.

Relevant comms

founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com
1
selfhosted@lemmy.world mod removes post about DNS for "Rule 3: Posts have to be centered around self-hosting." (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com
21 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Dafuck? Removed for rule 3? !selfhosted@lemmy.world what the?

As far as I'm aware running and getting DNS to work on a home network is precisely everything to do with self-hosting.

I get that I'm being a bit of an opinionated asshole, and maybe my post is not overly constructive, but shit, a good rant to start a discussion should not be a reason for removal, least of all for a rule that has blatantly not been violated and that's the only actual reason I can think of why I'd been banned.

A good rant is literally the most worthwhile content imho, a good hearty debate invites viewpoints and opinions, even if the OP is unpopular. I hate the sterile, overly polite, overly PC tone enforced on some Lemmy communities.

As long as no one is literally insulting other users or spreading misinformation or being discriminatory/xenophobic based on characteristics. I wasn't even swearing. I'm so done, I'm blocking all of lemmy.world until they get their shit together.

all 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Jerry@feddit.online 30 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

I'm not a moderator of selfhosted. But, I do have access to your post.

Your post was low quality and uninformed and didn't provide anything helpful. It was snarky and whiny. It was meant to complain, not help. It was, frankly, just noise. The moderator was just cleaning up the community for everyone's comfort.

As a community member, I would be happy to not have to have read your comment. This is why, I believe, your comment got chucked. The moderator was doing their job.

Here's an excerpt that shows the message's tone and quality:

"That RFC only suggests that some people MAY implement it as such, which yeah, sucks, because the RFC if it did it's job right should forbid it altogether and lobby the government to shoot anyone who utters anything that suggests such delirium on sight, along with the rest of avahi/bonjour and other garbage ideas like IPv6 or not being behind NAT as well."

[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 20 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Thanks for doing the work, that is garbage

[–] Beldarofremulak 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It reads like someone was larping as an influencer

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

And not in a metaphorical sense. Like, someone is at a LARP and their character is an influencer trying to break into tech. Meanwhile, the theme is Arthurian medieval, and this douche is arguing with the blacksmith about using the forge to blow glass for silicon chips.

[–] LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 2 weeks ago

Ur garbage :)))

[–] Scoopta@programming.dev 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That last part is just nuts, I mean that whole section is just nuts but especially the last part afaic. Also very uninformed

[–] LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm literally an MSc in Cybersec and Network Security is my specialty. You're a room temperature IQ moron who can't distinguish between an opinion that goes against the grain and misinformation.

[–] Scoopta@programming.dev 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

And I'm a network engineer by day that runs his own clearnet ASN for fun. Let's not start throwing insults, that's not productive. If you'd like me to discuss how you're wrong I'm more than willing to go into detail if you're actually interested in having a conversation about it.

[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world -5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You are wrong because Rule 3 has been used as the mod's reason for the removal.

If it were because of flaming or trolling, there are Rules 1 and 6 accordingly, but they have not been used here.

The complaint is justified about the mod using the Rule 3 wrong. Very obviously wrong. Anybody who knows a little bit about selfhosting knows that DNS is exactly on topic.

In addition, your attitude regarding "cleaning up" is questionable, too. People who are unable to write very fine tuned texts should not be allowed to post? Do we really need to "clean them up"?

[–] Jerry@feddit.online 11 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

That's just a technicality. I don't know the rule numbers. Whether it's 1 or 2, the comment deserved flushing.

[–] frayedpickles@lemmy.cafe 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

That's a gross mall cop PoV and I hope it also gets flushed. Rules are imperfect but shitting on someone's post because you didn't like it even though it broke no rules is absolutely awful. If the post were allowed to live and did trigger flame wars somehow, sure. But more likely it would just die on the vine. You're depriving OP the opportunity to learn, you're depriving an internet know it all the chance to correct.

I hope you aren't a mod of anything I care about.

[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That's just a technicality.

Not at all!

Mods should be very interested in making their work transparent and understandable.

So many of them do not understand that, or do not like it, and this is a huge problem, a huge vulnerability of the lemmy system as a whole.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 weeks ago

I guess we'll need to wait for a mod of that community to show up instead of beating up the guy who dropped into this meta discussion to try to help out.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 16 points 2 weeks ago

Upvoted when I read the title, downvoted when I read the actual content.

[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

This is an excerpt of OP's post in question:

Last android piece of garbage I buy. Is there even a single good reason it restricts .local, as is commonly used for local domains in LAN DNS to some hellish nonsense no one’s ever used called multicast DNS?

Is .local actually "commonly used for local domains in LAN DNS" or did you just see .local somewhere else (probably using mDNS) and decide to cargo cult it? I've never seen someone use it outside the context of zero-configuration networking.

fyi, besides Android, most Linux distros also ship with mDNS enabled by default, as do all Apple operating systems since the feature was first introduced in an update to Mac OS 9 in 2001. It's mostly just Windows that doesn't.

And before someone says “uhmm but m-muh RFC says so” - no. That RFC only suggests that some people MAY implement it as such, which yeah, sucks, because the RFC if it did it’s job right should forbid it altogether [...]

Which RFC says that? I just checked, and RFC6762 (Multicast DNS) says:

This document specifies that the DNS top-level domain ".local." is a special domain with special semantics, namely that any fully qualified name ending in ".local." is link-local, and names within this domain are meaningful only on the link where they originate. This is analogous to IPv4 addresses in the 169.254/16 prefix or IPv6 addresses in the FE80::/10 prefix, which are link-local and meaningful only on the link where they originate.

Any DNS query for a name ending with ".local." MUST be sent to the mDNS IPv4 link-local multicast address 224.0.0.251 (or its IPv6 equivalent FF02::FB).

Also, as per (the immediately prior) RFC6761 ("Special-Use Domain Names"), RFC6762 explicitly adds .local to the IANA registry of special-use domain names.

HTH!

[–] Scoopta@programming.dev 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

No one uses it? LMAO...I'm sorry that's just really funny, it's used everywhere behind the scenes. Almost every network has some amount of mDNS on it.

[–] LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago

Not mine :)

[–] LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Is .local actually "commonly used for local domains in LAN DNS"

Yes. It was even the suggested practice at one time:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.local

At one time, Microsoft at least suggested the use of .local as a pseudo-TLD for small private networks with internal DNS servers

Using the .local label for the full DNS name for the internal domain is a more secure configuration because the .local label is not registered for use on the Internet. This separates your internal domain from your public Internet domain name.

By default, a freshly installed Windows Server 2016 Essentials also adds .local as the default dns-prefix when a user doesn't select the advanced option, resulting in a domain with .local extension.

Yes they retracted the recommendation later, but in reality there are hundreds of thousands of networks that still use it. On the other hand almost nothing uses mDNS.

fyi, besides Android, most Linux distros also ship with mDNS enabled by default, as do all Apple operating systems since the feature was first introduced in an update to Mac OS 9 in 2001. It's mostly just Windows that doesn't.

FYI, the behaviour of resolving .local domains ONLY VIA MDNS is exclusive to android.

On the other hand, Windows of course does indeed have mDNS out of the box, same as Linux, per the RFC.

Are you retarded, or just pretending? Fucking bootcampers istg I'm so glad I don't have to work with y'all and only interact when you deliver my fucking takeaway.

Which RFC says that?

You would know if you could fucking read as it's linked pretty clearly in my post:

https://support.google.com/pixelphone/thread/139593141?hl=en&msgid=149988130

Links to:

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6762.html#section-6

Which is RFC 6762, which says:

Implementers MAY choose to look up such names concurrently via other mechanisms (e.g., Unicast DNS) and coalesce the results in some fashion

So actually the RFC does not limit whatsoever the resolution of .local domains to mDNS. Implementers, apart from Android do indeed always do look up via both unicast and multicast (if not disabled). Only android limits this to multicast-only.

Also, as per (the immediately prior) RFC6761 ("Special-Use Domain Names"), RFC6762 explicitly adds .local to the IANA registry of special-use domain names.

So? This has nothing to do with android's bizarre limitation on how it resolves .local.

HTH! KYS BTW!

[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Yes. It was even the suggested practice at one time:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.local

Cool, I didn't know that. But the article also says they recommend against it now. I see the "Microsoft recommendations" section of the wikipedia article indicates they changed their mind on this several times.

On the other hand almost nothing uses mDNS.

In my experience mDNS seems ubiquitous; almost every network connected device I've seen in the last couple decades has it enabled by default.

Fucking bootcampers istg I’m so glad I don’t have to work with y’all and only interact when you deliver my fucking takeaway.

Huh? What are "bootcampers"? It used to refer to people running windows on intel macs (because apple's boot loader to allow that was called BootCamp), but that wouldn't make any sense in this context. Unless you are having your food delivered by people who run Windows on old Apple hardware? 🤔

Implementers MAY choose to look up such names concurrently via other mechanisms (e.g., Unicast DNS) and coalesce the results in some fashion

So actually the RFC does not limit whatsoever the resolution of .local domains to mDNS. Implementers, apart from Android do indeed always do look up via both unicast and multicast (if not disabled). Only android limits this to multicast-only.

I see. Sorry I missed that part of the RFC.

But, FYI, it is really not only Android that doesn't send unicast queries for .local names; GNU/Linux distributions running avahi (eg, the distros most people use) also don't. I don't have a mac or iphone nearby to confirm but I would assume they are probably resolving .local exclusively via mDNS too. edit: this "Apple devices might not open your internal network’s ‘.local’ domain" support article indicates my assumption is probably correct.

Also, please don't tell people to KYS :(

[–] LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

In my experience mDNS seems ubiquitous; almost every network connected device I've seen in the last couple decades has it enabled by default.

Again, having it enabled by default is not an issue. I have it enabled everywhere, as you said - it's the default. But, it's also the default that .local is resolved both via multicast and unicast.

But, FYI, it is really not only Android that doesn't send unicast queries for .local names; GNU/Linux distributions running avahi (eg, the distros most people use) also don't.

Yes they do? Well at least in my case they do. As far as Unix/Linux I have Raspbian, Debian, OpenBSD, OpenWRT, SteamOS (had to hand-wring the DNS there tbf), Ubuntu, Mac OS and Kali and they all resolve just fine. I run my own recursive DNS server for internet and an authoritative zone for my local DNS, a domain ending in .local, and they all resolve .local via my server as is given to them by DHCP.

The Pi is definitely running Avahi and spamming multicast, when it attempts to resolve .local, it sends out multicast and unicast simultaneously, even with freshly flushed DNS cache.

But the article also says they recommend against it now.

That is very new though. .local is still default on fairly recent versions of Winserver (2016), as that article also specifies. I can attest this is also commonly still used by large businesses who don't want their AD to be related to their TLDs, RFC or no RFC, which makes the android implementation all the more idiotic.

Don't tell people to KYS

Okay. I got a fuckload of insults and dismissal from peabrains ITT in comments above yours, so I may have gone too far in a few places.

[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

The Pi is definitely running Avahi and spamming multicast, when it attempts to resolve .local, it sends out multicast and unicast simultaneously, even with freshly flushed DNS cache.

I owe you an apology - I see now that my avahi systems are in fact also sending unicast SOA? local. when I resolve a .local name, and presumably if my recursor told them it was responsible for it instead of NXDomain then I would resolve names through it.

I was pretty sure that it doesn't do that, but before telling you that it doesn't I actually did a test and ran tcpdump -ni any port 53 or port 5353 while resolving some .local names. i even noticed that there was that SOA query being sent to and from localhost (to systemd-resolved) but I saw no answer to it and figured that systemd-resolved was the thing silently ignoring that TLD. But: it turns out that the system I tested on has its systemd-resolved configured for DNSOverTLS so I wasn't seeing those SOA queries being sent on to the recursor on a different port 🤦

Sorry!

It does seem to me like a regrettable choice of the RFC authors to allow both, though, as it is easy to accidentally have a situation where the recursor and mDNS return different answers which would lead to inconsistent results when querying both in parallel.