DNS: A Replacement for Finger(blawg.nochan.net)
blawg.nochan.net
DNS: A Replacement for Finger
https://blawg.nochan.net/b/Internet-Crap/20260527-DNS-A-Replacement-For-Finger/
4 comments
When you say "get concatenated together" are you perhaps thinking of how multiple SPF records get concatenated by MTA's? Because in ISC dig they are multiple distinct records, which is fine too.
finger nochan.net
"bing bing bong."
"Catching up on HN"No. It's been a while, but I believe if you use multiple TXTs, resolvers can reorder them as they see fit. For example,
label IN TXT "foo " IN TXT "bar " IN TXT "baz"
You can have any number of TXT RRs with a label, allowing up to 65,280 bytes. However, resolvers can reorder those 3 TXT RRs.
If you put the text strings in quotes in a single TXT RR, e.g.:
label IN TXT "foo " "bar " "baz"
You'll get "foo bar baz" and each of the strings can be up to 255 bytes. I think (but I'm too lazy to verify) that the maximum length of a concatenated string is implementation dependent.
label IN TXT "foo " IN TXT "bar " IN TXT "baz"
You can have any number of TXT RRs with a label, allowing up to 65,280 bytes. However, resolvers can reorder those 3 TXT RRs.
If you put the text strings in quotes in a single TXT RR, e.g.:
label IN TXT "foo " "bar " "baz"
You'll get "foo bar baz" and each of the strings can be up to 255 bytes. I think (but I'm too lazy to verify) that the maximum length of a concatenated string is implementation dependent.
for i in $(seq 100);do echo -en '0';done
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
test 69s in txt "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000" "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000" "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000"
nsd-checkzone nochan.net ./nochan.net.zone
zone nochan.net is ok
nsd-control reload nochan.net
ok
# from my laptop
dig -t txt +short test.nochan.net
"0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000" "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000" "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000"
Still shows up as three quoted strings 100 characters long each but not 300 0's meaning no concatenation at least not when using dig which is what this thread is about.
Nope. That's the maximum length of a TXT record string. TXT record strings with the same owner name get concatenated together. The maximum for a TXT record is 65,280 octets (which may or may not translate into characters depending on encoding).
Also, you probably want to think about the implications of caching and TTL.