I never heard of this "0.0.0.0" thing before today, and frankly don't
understand why we are making any effort to support it.

Skeelo writes:
> How about having it answer 0.0.0.0 so you could use 'telnet 0.0.0.0' and
> other such commands. This is not strictly a DNS problem, many people
> expect a un*x system to answer a request to 0.0.0.0 and I know NetBSD did
> at one time. Why not just fix it so that it does answer (at least
> locally) requests to this address?
> 
> On Mon, 17 Aug 1998, Jay Maynard wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Aug 17, 1998 at 10:16:06AM -0400, gwr@netbsd.org wrote:
> > > This question come up enough that it might be worth having
> > > the code that interprets resolv.conf convert 0.0.0.0 to
> > > 127.0.0.1 for you (or complain, or both).
> > 
> > How about having it complain, and also turn it into the real IP address of
> > le0 (or whatever the first non-lo interface it encounters)? As someone else
> > mentioned, this makes things behave better in the presence of DNS
> > forwarding...
> > 
>