On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 8:14 AM Marco M. wrote:
>
> Am 25.10.2023 um 07:25:45 Uhr schrieb gene heskett:
>
> > Is there an RFC number for this already?
>
> ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc8375.html
This is so interesting (to me). I can't believe I missed that RFC...
>From the Abstract:
Sent from my iPad
> On Oct 25, 2023, at 8:12 AM, Marco M. wrote:
>
> Am 25.10.2023 um 12:17:40 Uhr schrieb Joe:
>
>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 09:01:18 +
>>> Michael Kjörling <2695bd53d...@ewoof.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I see lots of people in this sub-thread arguing for
>>>
Am 25.10.2023 um 07:25:45 Uhr schrieb gene heskett:
> Is there an RFC number for this already?
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc8375.html
Am 25.10.2023 um 12:17:40 Uhr schrieb Joe:
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 09:01:18 +
> Michael Kjörling <2695bd53d...@ewoof.net> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > I see lots of people in this sub-thread arguing for
> > cobbled-together, "it works for me for now and if it breaks I'll
> > just fix it later" style
On 10/25/23 05:01, Michael Kjörling wrote:
On 25 Oct 2023 07:32 +0200, from m...@dorfdsl.de (Marco M.):
TLD '.lan' works. As best I can tell on the web, it doesn't exist.
Is it intended for that?
No?
Then don't use it. It can be used in the future for public domains.
Exactly.
I see lots
On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 09:01:18 +
Michael Kjörling <2695bd53d...@ewoof.net> wrote:
>
> I see lots of people in this sub-thread arguing for cobbled-together,
> "it works for me for now and if it breaks I'll just fix it later"
> style solutions.
>
>
Not arguing about anything else, but this
On 25 Oct 2023 07:32 +0200, from m...@dorfdsl.de (Marco M.):
>> TLD '.lan' works. As best I can tell on the web, it doesn't exist.
>
> Is it intended for that?
> No?
> Then don't use it. It can be used in the future for public domains.
Exactly.
I see lots of people in this sub-thread arguing
Le 25/10/2023 à 03:47, David Wright a écrit :
On Mon 23 Oct 2023 at 12:06:05 (+0200), Christian Groessler wrote:
On 10/23/23 07:29, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 1:24 AM ghe2001 wrote:
How about a /29 or so, named "here.", hosts named 2 or 3 letter
abbreviations of what you
Am 25.10.2023 um 03:40:46 Uhr schrieb ghe2001:
> TLD '.lan' works. As best I can tell on the web, it doesn't exist.
Is it intended for that?
No?
Then don't use it. It can be used in the future for public domains.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
--- Original Message ---
On Tuesday, October 24th, 2023 at 7:47 PM, David Wright
wrote:
> On Mon 23 Oct 2023 at 12:06:05 (+0200), Christian Groessler wrote:
>
> > On 10/23/23 07:29, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> >
> > Just register a
On Mon 23 Oct 2023 at 12:06:05 (+0200), Christian Groessler wrote:
> On 10/23/23 07:29, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 1:24 AM ghe2001 wrote:
> > >
> > > How about a /29 or so, named "here.", hosts named 2 or 3
> > > letter abbreviations of what you call the computers, with
On 10/23/23 16:35, Andy Smith wrote:
Hello,
On Sun, Oct 22, 2023 at 10:33:47PM -0400, gene heskett wrote:
On 10/22/23 20:48, Greg Wooledge wrote:
Any issues you've encountered have been the result of misconfiguration.
You have repeatedly shown errors in your config files, and once those
have
On 10/23/23 14:09, Greg Wooledge wrote:
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 12:12:50PM -0400, gene heskett wrote:
Google seems to have high jacked port 80
https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/0a8b96aa-8630-ee5c-5135-59221c55b...@shentel.net
They have, chromium, the google browser, absolutely cannot be
Hello,
On Sun, Oct 22, 2023 at 10:33:47PM -0400, gene heskett wrote:
> On 10/22/23 20:48, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > Any issues you've encountered have been the result of misconfiguration.
> > You have repeatedly shown errors in your config files, and once those
> > have been corrected, everything
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 02:09:31PM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 12:12:50PM -0400, gene heskett wrote:
> > > > Google seems to have high jacked port 80
> > >
> > > https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/0a8b96aa-8630-ee5c-5135-59221c55b...@shentel.net
> > >
> > They have,
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 12:12:50PM -0400, gene heskett wrote:
> > > Google seems to have high jacked port 80
> >
> > https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/0a8b96aa-8630-ee5c-5135-59221c55b...@shentel.net
> >
> They have, chromium, the google browser, absolutely cannot be sent to
>
On 10/22/23 22:55, Max Nikulin wrote:
On 23/10/2023 04:43, gene heskett wrote:
As I keep repeating Dan, there is not a local dns, its all a 15 entry
hosts file atm. So that cannot bite /me/.
It can. Some day .den TLD may be registered and chosen by a 3d printer
manufacturer. It might
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
--- Original Message ---
On Sunday, October 22nd, 2023 at 11:29 PM, Jeffrey Walton
wrote:
> Whatever you come up with for , ICANN can add to the
>
> gTLD namespace; see https://icannwiki.org/Brand_TLD.
>
>
> The DNS queries for
On 10/22/23 22:37, John Hasler wrote:
Gene writes:
This is generally true, Greg, and I get that, but every new version,
which should just continue what works, doesn't cuz somebody moved a
config file and last years fix doesn't work this year. And you can't
ask for help when its not working. So
On 10/22/23 23:08, Stefan Monnier wrote:
This is generally true, Greg, and I get that, but every new version,
which should just continue what works, doesn't cuz somebody moved a
config file and last years fix doesn't work this year. And you can't
ask for help when its not working. So YOU have
On 10/23/23 07:29, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 1:24 AM ghe2001 wrote:
How about a /29 or so, named "here.", hosts named 2 or 3 letter
abbreviations of what you call the computers, with unroutable IPs, DNS'ed in /etc/hosts (with
shortcuts).
Whatever you come up with for ,
On 23/10/2023 09:59, Stefan Monnier wrote:
I can relate to Gene's feelings since there's been indeed some churn
over the years, but `/etc/hosts` seems like an odd example because this
one is among the most stable part of Unix/Linux.
Gene's issue was with resolv.conf and he was refusing Greg's
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 1:24 AM ghe2001 wrote:
>
> How about a /29 or so, named "here.", hosts named 2 or 3
> letter abbreviations of what you call the computers, with unroutable IPs,
> DNS'ed in /etc/hosts (with shortcuts).
Whatever you come up with for , ICANN can add to the
gTLD namespace;
>> This is generally true, Greg, and I get that, but every new version,
>> which should just continue what works, doesn't cuz somebody moved a
>> config file and last years fix doesn't work this year. And you can't
>> ask for help when its not working. So YOU have to fix it based of what
>> YOU
On 23/10/2023 04:43, gene heskett wrote:
As I keep repeating Dan, there is not a local dns, its all a 15 entry
hosts file atm. So that cannot bite /me/.
It can. Some day .den TLD may be registered and chosen by a 3d printer
manufacturer. It might happen that you would not be able to access
Gene writes:
> This is generally true, Greg, and I get that, but every new version,
> which should just continue what works, doesn't cuz somebody moved a
> config file and last years fix doesn't work this year. And you can't
> ask for help when its not working. So YOU have to fix it based of what
On 10/22/23 20:48, Greg Wooledge wrote:
On Sun, Oct 22, 2023 at 08:36:53PM -0400, gene heskett wrote:
What really bugs me is when the maintainers forget there are hosts file
users, and do something that totally screws us up,
Gene, you're being irrational again. "Hosts file only" systems have
On Sun, Oct 22, 2023 at 08:36:53PM -0400, gene heskett wrote:
> What really bugs me is when the maintainers forget there are hosts file
> users, and do something that totally screws us up,
Gene, you're being irrational again. "Hosts file only" systems have been
supported since before Debian
On 10/22/23 18:45, John Hasler wrote:
I wrote:
It's for people who haven't a clue as to what a domainname or address
block is.
Gene writes:
If that is an insult, so be it.
I just meant to explain that though it is not a solution to your problem,
it is a solution to a problem some other
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
How about a /29 or so, named "here.", hosts named 2 or 3 letter
abbreviations of what you call the computers, with unroutable IPs, DNS'ed in
/etc/hosts (with shortcuts).
Works here...
--
Glenn English
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version:
I wrote:
> It's for people who haven't a clue as to what a domainname or address
> block is.
Gene writes:
> If that is an insult, so be it.
I just meant to explain that though it is not a solution to your problem,
it is a solution to a problem some other people have.
--
John Hasler
On 10/22/23 14:19, John Hasler wrote:
Gene writes:
Chuckle. Looks like a solution looking for a problem. You can use
whatever domainname that tickles your fancy when your net is in an
un-routeable address block.
It's for people who haven't a clue as to what a domainname or address
block is.
On 10/22/23 14:17, Dan Ritter wrote:
gene heskett wrote:
On 10/22/23 11:19, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Sun, Oct 22, 2023 at 7:13 AM Michael Kjörling <2695bd53d...@ewoof.net> wrote:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8375
Chuckle. Looks like a solution looking for a problem. You can use
On Sun, Oct 22, 2023 at 2:33 PM Dan Ritter wrote:
>
> gene heskett wrote:
> > On 10/22/23 11:19, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 22, 2023 at 7:13 AM Michael Kjörling <2695bd53d...@ewoof.net>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8375
> > >
> > Chuckle. Looks like a
On 22 Oct 2023 13:13 -0500, from j...@sugarbit.com (John Hasler):
> It's for people who haven't a clue as to what a domainname or address
> block is.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7788
RFC 8375 section 1:
"Although this document makes specific reference to [RFC7788], it is
not
gene heskett wrote:
> On 10/22/23 11:19, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 22, 2023 at 7:13 AM Michael Kjörling <2695bd53d...@ewoof.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8375
> >
> Chuckle. Looks like a solution looking for a problem. You can use whatever
> domainname
Gene writes:
> Chuckle. Looks like a solution looking for a problem. You can use
> whatever domainname that tickles your fancy when your net is in an
> un-routeable address block.
It's for people who haven't a clue as to what a domainname or address
block is.
On 10/22/23 11:19, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Sun, Oct 22, 2023 at 7:13 AM Michael Kjörling <2695bd53d...@ewoof.net> wrote:
It's fairly recent (RFC 8375, May 2018) but this type of usage is
pretty much exactly what home.arpa is meant for.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8375
Chuckle.
On Sun, Oct 22, 2023 at 7:13 AM Michael Kjörling <2695bd53d...@ewoof.net> wrote:
>
> On 21 Oct 2023 17:13 -0400, from poc...@columbus.rr.com (Pocket):
> > Why would I register a domain name for an internal network?
> > Any name will do. You could make the same argument if you just
> > makeup a
On 10/22/23 07:13, Michael Kjörling wrote:
On 21 Oct 2023 17:13 -0400, from poc...@columbus.rr.com (Pocket):
Why would I register a domain name for an internal network?
Any name will do. You could make the same argument if you just
makeup a domain to use as it could already be registered or
On 21 Oct 2023 17:13 -0400, from poc...@columbus.rr.com (Pocket):
> Why would I register a domain name for an internal network?
> Any name will do. You could make the same argument if you just
> makeup a domain to use as it could already be registered or someone
> my register it in the future.
>
101 - 141 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
