curl / Mailing Lists / curl-library / Single Mail


Re: General query about SNI implementation.

From: Daniel Stenberg <>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 18:15:49 +0200 (CEST)

On Mon, 30 Jul 2018, Alisha Joshi wrote:

> I have referred to this :
> and tried using it in my
> application and it works. However, I find it worrysome that CURLOPT_RESOLVE
> option pre-populates the DNS cache with entries for the host+port pair.

Why is that "worrysome" ?

> My intention is just to send Server name extension and not change any DNS
> properties.

But if it gets you the same end results, does it really matter *how* it was

> I would like to know why it was found better to use CURLOPT_RESOLVE to set
> Server Name instead of providing a new CURLOPT to set Server Name?

I wouldn't say it is "better", but it is an existing method/option that
already exist and for most purposes can accomplish the same things making the
question the reversed:

Why should we add a new option if you can get your thing done using an
existing option?

> Also are any risks associated with using CURLOPT_RESOLVE to set Server Name?

I can't see why it would be risky at all.

Received on 2018-07-30