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 problem
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
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, it's like
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
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
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? At
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
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
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
9 matches
Mail list logo
