Kevin Darcy wrote:
> But, as far as I can tell, there's no *practical* reason to disallow
> underscores, other than the fact that it may trip the standards-checking
> code of some _other_ piece of software. So, piece of software A
> disallows underscores because it's worried about causing a proble
Danny Mayer wrote:
Kevin Darcy wrote:
But, as far as I can tell, there's no *practical* reason to disallow
underscores, other than the fact that it may trip the standards-checking
code of some _other_ piece of software. So, piece of software A
disallows underscores because it's worried about
Kevin Darcy wrote:
> Mark Andrews wrote:
>> W_h_e_r_e_ _i_s_ _t__h_e_
>> _h_o_s_t_._n_a_m_e__ _i_n_
>> _t_h_i___s_ ___l_i_n__e.
>>
> The ironic thing is, I don't think that *aesthetically* I favor
> underscores any more than Mark does.
>
> But, to me
Mark Andrews wrote:
In message <49a755bf.9030...@chrysler.com>, Kevin Darcy writes:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Mark Andrews wrote:
When does it stop? What will be the next character you
"just have to have"? At the moment you have 1 inter label
Mark Andrews writes:
>
> In message <49a755bf.9030...@chrysler.com>, Kevin Darcy writes:
> > Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > >> Mark Andrews wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> When does it stop? What will be the next character you
> > >>> "just have to have"? At the moment you have 1
In message <49a755bf.9030...@chrysler.com>, Kevin Darcy writes:
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >> Mark Andrews wrote:
> >>
> >>> When does it stop? What will be the next character you
> >>> "just have to have"? At the moment you have 1 inter label
> >>> seperator and 1 intra label
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Mark Andrews wrote:
When does it stop? What will be the next character you
"just have to have"? At the moment you have 1 inter label
seperator and 1 intra label seperator. That should be
enough for anyone.
On 25.02.09
> Mark Andrews wrote:
> > When does it stop? What will be the next character you
> > "just have to have"? At the moment you have 1 inter label
> > seperator and 1 intra label seperator. That should be
> > enough for anyone.
On 25.02.09 08:49, Peter Laws wrote:
> Like 640k of mem
In message <49a55a7f.8010...@ou.edu>, Peter Laws writes:
> Mark Andrews wrote:
> > When does it stop? What will be the next character you
> > "just have to have"? At the moment you have 1 inter label
> > seperator and 1 intra label seperator. That should be
> > enough for anyone
Mark Andrews wrote:
When does it stop? What will be the next character you
"just have to have"? At the moment you have 1 inter label
seperator and 1 intra label seperator. That should be
enough for anyone.
Like 640k of memory.
Unicode is coming (as fast as I
Jeff Lightner wrote:
And of course you can legitimately say it is a "Standard" even if it
isn't enforced by the software. Your argument would be that people
implementing new servers or attempting to access the systems wouldn't be
able to do so because they wouldn't have added the "exception to
Eric C. Davis wrote:
Are there plans for Bind to enforce hostname compliance according to
RFC's or is this going to be left up to each DNS operator?
I'm going to take an even more radical "con" position than most of the
people in this thread.
An A record maps a DNS name into a 32-bit value.
In message <49a3a09a.2000...@blue-labs.org>, David Ford writes:
> Here's a question. Are we incapable of dealing with things like
> underscores in hostnames? Is there any significant harm in adapting?
When does it stop? What will be the next character you
"just have to have"?
It's an excellent idea to make your systems handle such hostnames
without problems (e.g. not crashing) when they run across such a
name on the Internet.
It's unfriendly to propagate such hostnames when doing so impedes
others' ability to do something.
It's against your own interests to propagate
Here's a question. Are we incapable of dealing with things like
underscores in hostnames? Is there any significant harm in adapting?
-david
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Ah yes, the perennial rathole...
Eric C. Davis wrote:
> I know the option to use this compliance checker is present, but I'm
> curious to know if there are plans to make it mandatory to comply. We
RFC 1123 has always been mandatory for Internet connected hosts. Valid
characters for a hostname a
Eric C. Davis wrote:
> Are there plans for Bind to enforce hostname compliance according
> to RFC's or is this going to be left up to each DNS operator?
the question of benefit always arises when considering the
application of RFCs. It's probably better not enforcing things
just for the sake of c
ception to
Standard" that your PHBs are requiring.
-Original Message-
From: bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org
[mailto:bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of Chris Thompson
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 2:31 PM
To: Bind Users Mailing List
Subject: Re: Hostname Naming Complian
> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:07:31 +
> From: Evan Hunt
> To: "Eric C. Davis"
> Subject: Re: Hostname Naming Compliance
> Cc: "bind-users@lists.isc.org"
>
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 01:54:46PM -0500, Eric C. Davis wrote:
> > I know the option
On Feb 23 2009, Evan Hunt wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 01:54:46PM -0500, Eric C. Davis wrote:
I know the option to use this compliance checker is present, but I'm
curious to know if there are plans to make it mandatory to comply. We
aren't using this feature now, but I would like to. My pr
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 01:54:46PM -0500, Eric C. Davis wrote:
> I know the option to use this compliance checker is present, but I'm
> curious to know if there are plans to make it mandatory to comply. We
> aren't using this feature now, but I would like to. My problem is
> politicking my way
I know the option to use this compliance checker is present, but I'm
curious to know if there are plans to make it mandatory to comply. We
aren't using this feature now, but I would like to. My problem is
politicking my way around the issue of breaking something that works.
If Bind were to s
On Feb 23, 2009, at 10:19 AM, Eric C. Davis wrote:
Are there plans for Bind to enforce hostname compliance according to
RFC's or is this going to be left up to each DNS operator?
It's present in BIND 9.3 and later. All characters except a-z, A-Z,
0-9, and "-" itself are forbidden to appear
23 matches
Mail list logo
