Ross Boylan wrote:
> > +
> > +The format of the host table is originally described in RFC 952.
> How about this instead?
> +RFC 952 gave the original format for the host table, though it has
> +since changed.
>
> That makes it clearer that RFC 952 does not describe the current
> format of this file.
I have now:
diff -u -p -r1.7 hosts.5
--- man5/hosts.5 21 Apr 2005 18:43:40 -0000 1.7
+++ man5/hosts.5 24 Apr 2005 16:39:37 -0000
@@ -93,7 +93,8 @@ though looking around at the time of wri
historical hosts.txt files on the WWW. I just found three, from 92,
94, and 95.
-The format of the host table is originally described in RFC 952.
+The format of the host table is originally described in RFC 952 and
+has been changed since then.
.SH FILES
.I /etc/hosts
.SH "SEE ALSO"
> > .SH FILES
> > .I /etc/hosts
> > .SH "SEE ALSO"
>
> Also, if you could say anything about when changes to the file have an
> effect, or what needs to be done to make them have an effect (e.g., on
> the resolver, on DNS), that would be helpful. I realize that
> information may be application specific.
Michael, what about the following note:
diff -u -p -r1.8 -r1.9
--- man5/hosts.5 24 Apr 2005 16:45:49 -0000 1.8
+++ man5/hosts.5 24 Apr 2005 16:53:04 -0000 1.9
@@ -82,6 +82,9 @@ advantage.
146.82.138.7 master.debian.org master
209.237.226.90 www.opensource.org
.fi
+.SH NOTE
+Modifications in this file usually take effect immediately, except
+when a programs cache this file.
.SH "HISTORICAL NOTE"
Before the advent of DNS, the host table was the only way of resolving
hostnames on the fledgling Internet. Indeed, this file could be
Regards,
Joey
--
Everybody talks about it, but nobody does anything about it! -- Mark Twain
Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
