On 12/10/11 23:09, Kevin Darcy wrote:
As far as I know, only HP-UX has hacked nslookup to look at /etc/hosts.
And I don't think it even looks at the switch file or other naming
sources (e.g. Yellow Plague). HP-UX's nslookup enhancement is a
one-off, I believe.
For the record, on HP-UX it does
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 03:33:30 +0700, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote
If you're concern about what address programs gets when they resolve
host names, then getent is a better choice as it also respects
nsswitch.conf and hosts file.
According to the (almost useless) manpage for getent, all it does is
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:05 PM, listmail listm...@entertech.com wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 03:33:30 +0700, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote
If you're concern about what address programs gets when they resolve
host names, then getent is a better choice as it also respects
nsswitch.conf and hosts file.
On 10/13/2011 07:05 AM, listmail wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 03:33:30 +0700, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote
If you're concern about what address programs gets when they resolve
host names, then getent is a better choice as it also respects
nsswitch.conf and hosts file.
According to the (almost
host is four characters shorter.
Use `dig' and save 25% ;-)
`nslookup' must die. (Until a few years ago, it printed a deprecation
notice which, unfortunately, has since been removed.)
-JP
___
Please visit
Many years ago, various flavors of unix began distributing a
utility called host which did almost the same thing as nslookup.
Host is what I use most of the time, now, and I actually thought
that nslookup on unix systems was maybe going away.
A coworker recently asked me about nslookup on
, October 12, 2011 1:22 PM
To: 'bind-users@lists.isc.org'; mar...@dc.cis.okstate.edu
Subject: host versus nslookup
Many years ago, various flavors of unix began distributing a
utility called host which did almost the same thing as nslookup.
Host is what I use most of the time, now, and I actually
Martin wrote on 10/12/2011 01:21:45 PM:
Other than a different output format, what are the
advantages of having both host and nslookup.
host is four characters shorter.
Confidentiality Notice:
This electronic message and any attachments may contain confidential or
privileged
On 10/12/2011 1:21 PM, Martin McCormick wrote:
Many years ago, various flavors of unix began distributing a
utility called host which did almost the same thing as nslookup.
Host is what I use most of the time, now, and I actually thought
that nslookup on unix systems was maybe going away.
On 10/12/2011 3:01 PM, Kevin Darcy wrote:
On 10/12/2011 1:21 PM, Martin McCormick wrote:
Many years ago, various flavors of unix began distributing a
utility called host which did almost the same thing as nslookup.
Host is what I use most of the time, now, and I actually thought
that nslookup
@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: host versus nslookup
On 10/12/2011 3:01 PM, Kevin Darcy wrote:
On 10/12/2011 1:21 PM, Martin McCormick wrote:
Many years ago, various flavors of unix began distributing a
utility called host which did almost the same thing as nslookup.
Host is what I use most
On 12/10/11 22:08, David Miller wrote:
On 10/12/2011 3:01 PM, Kevin Darcy wrote:
On 10/12/2011 1:21 PM, Martin McCormick wrote:
Many years ago, various flavors of unix began distributing a
utility called host which did almost the same thing as nslookup.
Host is what I use most of the time,
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:23 AM, Sten Carlsen st...@s-carlsen.dk wrote:
Use dig.
Always use dig.
I don't quite agree, for debugging bind, use dig - for debugging lookup
issues on some machine, host will behave more like any normal program, using
resolv.conf and what else and can point to
On 12/10/11 22:33, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:23 AM, Sten Carlsen st...@s-carlsen.dk wrote:
Use dig.
Always use dig.
I don't quite agree, for debugging bind, use dig - for debugging lookup
issues on some machine, host will behave more like any normal program, using
On 10/12/2011 5:46 PM, Sten Carlsen wrote:
On 12/10/11 22:33, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:23 AM, Sten Carlsenst...@s-carlsen.dk wrote:
Use dig.
Always use dig.
I don't quite agree, for debugging bind, use dig - for debugging lookup
issues on some machine, host will
AIX also does something similar.
On 10/12/11 05:09 PM, Kevin Darcy wrote:
As far as I know, only HP-UX has hacked nslookup to look at /etc/hosts.
And I don't think it even looks at the switch file or other naming
sources (e.g. Yellow Plague). HP-UX's nslookup enhancement is a
one-off, I
In message 040b89c8b1e1d945ae2700c511a039e905a...@atmexdb04.dsw.net, Lightne
r, Jeff writes:
One thing that is different about nslookup on HP-UX (which doesn't have host)
is that it actually respects nsswitch.conf so will give you results from /et
c/hosts OR from name services whereas most
17 matches
Mail list logo
