![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/a146cb96-f93f-4dc6-a584-5b37adb9d7f8.png)
![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/d3d059e3-fa3d-45af-ac93-ac894beba378.png)
why bother opening a pathway in the first place
i’ve never had an IG account myself, but i think your mistake is in assuming that someone accepting your follow request on a restricted IG account is an indicator of desire for chatting with strangers. accepting your follow request might just mean they glanced at your profile and assessed that you aren’t a spammer or bot, not that they want to chat with you.
perhaps just need to find out somewhere in the real world where I could bond more easily with real people?
for sure that is a good idea 😂
but there are also many places online where it is much more reasonable to assume people are interested in chatting with strangers.
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 ofNXDomain
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.