Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I.P. look up for wikipedia[edit]

Is there any way to do a I.P. look up for wikipedia? I am working on a page for class and forgot to sign in but it has my I.P. address and now my teacher is telling me I won't get credit for my work. I was wondering if there is a way to get my name to show up instead of my I.P. address. Thanks for any help you can give.

Pass3514 (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: no. Please see WP:HELP for further information on using Wikipedia. (Article talk pages should be focused towards improving the article). -- intgr [talk] 19:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any such a thing as "forward-confirmed reverse DNS"?[edit]

Is there any such a thing as "forward-confirmed reverse DNS"? .... Reverse DNS is all about confirming forward DNS... so who cares about any reverse DNS enough to confirm the forward?! I feel the term "forward-confirmed reverse DNS" is stupid with a capital S and should be removed from wiki and FCrDNS should like always and again refer to Full-Circle-rDNS. --- rDNS is everything about "reverse"... it isn't primary, it is subsidiary and secondary and very much reverse of the forward. Again "Reverse DNS is all about confirming forward DNS", if there was no forward to then reverse cannot exist... so "forward-confirmed" reverse DNS can't exist without some forward (that forward can be unconfirmed)... Tymes (talk) 03:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to validate/confirm rDNS... there are only reason for rDNS is to validate (forward) DNS. How can you "reverse DNS" (to get Forward-Confirmed rDNS) without reversing a DNS? -- so you can't validate something with rDNS without DNS coming from something... so how can you validate with reverse DNS when it is a reverse?... You can only validate Forward DNS with rDNS whereby you get the "rDNS" that we have all been talking about... -- I don't understand anything that I've just written Tymes (talk) 03:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- if someone can give me an example of rDNS without reversing a dns then I might understand what "Forward-confirmed reverse DNS" means... "rDNS" is always about "Reverse-Confirmed regular DNS" Tymes (talk) 03:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - so "RCrDNS" is more accurate and more common than "FCrDNS" -- "reverse-confirmed regularDNS" vs "forward-confirmed reverseDNS" but "full-circle reverseDNS" is always appropriate to RCrDNS!
  - rename this from "Forward-Confirmed rDNS" to "Full-Circle rDNS". Tymes (talk) 03:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Forward-Confirmed rDNS" is a stupid misnomer for "Full-Circle rDNS".Tymes (talk) 03:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Reverse DNS is supposed to provide the reverse operation to regular (forward) DNS. Normally with DNS you look up a name to get an IP. With reverse DNS you look up an IP to get a name. This is useful in providing (for example) a human readable name for the machine you just received an incoming conection from.
    - However there is nothing in the DNS protocol to ensure that people publish honest forward records. So If I wanted to impersonate wikimedia I could set my reverse dns to something.wikimedia.com. Obviously this is undesirable hence it makes sense for applications using reverse DNS to perform a forward lookup to check the legitimacy of the reverse record. 151.229.191.223 (talk) 00:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The standard name is "iprev"[edit]

RFC 5451 describes this authentication method and provides means for inserting an Authentication-Result header field to annotate the result. The official name it calls the method is iprev. I inserted a REDIRECT for iprev, but then this comes out with a capital "I", so I didn't bother trying to replace FCrDNS with iprev everywhere... Yet, we should switch to the new name, sooner or later

ale (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Informational RFCs are not standard defining documents.[edit]

RFC 1912 cannot be used to imply that the DNS standards require implementation of FcRDNS. It is an Informational RFC, and one which lacks BCP designation at that. Editors are more than welcome to strengthen this article's presentation of FCrDNS use cases with relevant citations, but please do so without perpetuating this myth. Refer to RFC 1796 if you are uncertain of the difference between Informational RFCs and the IETF Standards Track, bearing in mind that this document predates changes to Proposed Standards per RFC 7127. Brevantes (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]