In article <mailman.49.1365191296.20661.bind-us...@lists.isc.org>,
wbr...@e1b.org wrote:
And then there's theses folks:
http://no-www.org/
On 04/08/2013 06:42 AM, Sam Wilson wrote:
Is co-opting high-level name space for a single protocol a modern-day
landgrab?
On 08.04.13 20:58, Doug Barton wrote:
Is holding on to the antiquated notion that every protocol needs a
unique hostname charmingly anachronistic, or just plain
obstructionist? (See what I did there?)
it's kind of best practice for cases a domain contains more hosts with
different usage. But you know this, don't you?
For bonus points, list the number of services running on your typical
server configuration, and then tell us how many of them have their
own hostnames. Start with dns, ssh, and ntp.
confinue with smtp/pop/imap. The www belongs to these, not to the
dns/ssh/ntp
The point being that the world moved on, and putting websites on
hostnames that don't start with www. is the common case now. Can we
save our energy for something more productive?
Why did you post this then?
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
_______________________________________________
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
from this list
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
