Erm, it's not redirection, because, like I said: DNS has no redirection — not in the sense that HTTP does.
If you don't understand this, then you are perhaps lacking some knowledge as to how HTTP redirects work, and/or how DNS lookups work, and/or how they are quite different concepts.
HTTP has redirects. DNS doesn't - but sure, it can be intercepted / hijacked.
> It's that time again got to read the man page
No need for the snark, this is HN, not Reddit.
But I'm already well aware of the feature you describe (after all, PiHole/similar relies on exactly this kind of interception) — but it isn't actually new at all, dnsmasq has had this since the the very beginning, literally day one.
It's still not redirection like HTTP though, it's interception: serving an IP number from a conf file when a matching domain is requested instead of querying upstream. Very similar to adding an entry in your local hosts file.
Redirect isn't a term that is really ever used in DNS configuration. Except in the context of NXDOMAIN responses. And that's certainly not the topic of this thread.
With HTTP redirection, the server responds with 'moved' and the URL of the new location of the requested content. But all one can do with DNS requests, is to respond: this is the IP for the domain A/CNAME you requested (or respond no-such-domain). In HTTP, that kind of inline interception can only be done with a proxy (transparent or otherwise) — and that's not the same as a the HTTP redirect mechanism at all.
Some folk might argue that this is only a semantic difference. But it's not at all: they're quite different mechanisms, different traffic-flow / communication patterns. And the distinction is quite important to anyone who manages both DNS and HTTP, at a certain level.
But if you want to call it DNS redirection, then good for you. But the old-timers will call it out nearly every time, because it's not actually redirection. — DNS doesn't have redirection like HTTP. Not in the same sense as HTTP at all. Anyone who claims otherwise, really just needs to brush up on their DNS knowledge / terminology.
It just felt gratuitously weird. It was completely out of place given the purpose of the article. Either it served to support some beef the author has with that region, or just to find any excuse to link to another article on the site.
If you look at the bold text at the beginning of the article it should be "Lead poisoning kills millions annually. One country is showing the way forward."
Underneath the bold text is smaller text "How Bangladesh removed lead from turmeric spice — and saved lives."
> If you look at the URL it should be "bangladesh-tumeric-lead-poisoning-contamination-public-health"
The URL is not the title and should not be used as such. It’s just a convenient way of accessing the article later. There are several reasons why URLs can (and often do) differ from the titles, it would be a terrible policy to base the HN story titles on them.
If you told me that if I leave my house at 10:00 PM to-nite and I had a probability 1/15000 chance of dying or become incapacitated I would more than likely wait five or ten mins before leaving.
50-year-old males have a 1/75000 chance of dying on any given day. 70-year-old males have a 1/15000 chance of dying on any given day. See https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
