Re: domain names, was: hostname

Hi, Am 2018-03-24 hackte Miles Fidelman in die Tasten: > On 3/23/18 8:46 PM, David Wright wrote: >>> Not actually sure of that.  Verizon stopped offering mail a while >>> ago (sent people to AOL), and then there are folks who have >>> university or work accounts. >> Verizon own AOL. >> > Right. 

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On 3/23/18 8:46 PM, David Wright wrote: On Fri 23 Mar 2018 at 13:05:17 (-0400), Miles Fidelman wrote: On 3/23/18 1:01 PM, David Wright wrote: On Fri 23 Mar 2018 at 11:59:06 (-0400), Miles Fidelman wrote: At some point, the network name that one's PC inserts into outgoing mail might become

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Friday, March 23, 2018 09:12:19 PM David Wright wrote: > On Fri 23 Mar 2018 at 20:13:10 (-0400), rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > I think Brian was assuming that the webmail user was using the webmail > system provided by the ISP itself (rather than a third party's, like > Google's). Many ISPs

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 08:27:11PM +, Brian wrote: Having authenticated to get on the network it is superfluous to ask for further authentication to send mail (or browse the web), wouldn't you say? No, because: 1) it's quicker and easier to address spam issues if there is a client login

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Fri 23 Mar 2018 at 20:13:10 (-0400), rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, March 23, 2018 06:49:49 PM Brian wrote: > > On Fri 23 Mar 2018 at 22:22:45 +, Joe wrote: > > > On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:01:42 -0500 > > > > > > David Wright wrote: > > > > I venture to

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Fri 23 Mar 2018 at 19:13:54 (+), Brian wrote: > On Fri 23 Mar 2018 at 12:01:42 -0500, David Wright wrote: > > > I venture to suggest that many (most?) .home users will be using their > > ISP's smarthost, which would mean that the ISP (a) usually insist on > > authentication and (b) and

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Fri 23 Mar 2018 at 13:05:17 (-0400), Miles Fidelman wrote: > On 3/23/18 1:01 PM, David Wright wrote: > >On Fri 23 Mar 2018 at 11:59:06 (-0400), Miles Fidelman wrote: > >>At some point, the network name that one's PC inserts into outgoing > >>mail might become important. > >I venture to suggest

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Friday, March 23, 2018 06:49:49 PM Brian wrote: > On Fri 23 Mar 2018 at 22:22:45 +, Joe wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:01:42 -0500 > > > > David Wright wrote: > > > I venture to suggest that many (most?) .home users will be using their > > > ISP's smarthost, >

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Fri 23 Mar 2018 at 22:22:45 +, Joe wrote: > On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:01:42 -0500 > David Wright wrote: > > > > I venture to suggest that many (most?) .home users will be using their > > ISP's smarthost, > > I'll see your smarthost and raise you a webmail... how

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Fri, 2018-03-23 at 22:22 +, Joe wrote: > On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:01:42 -0500 > David Wright wrote: > > > > > > I venture to suggest that many (most?) .home users will be using > > their > > ISP's smarthost,  > > I'll see your smarthost and raise you a

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:01:42 -0500 David Wright wrote: > > I venture to suggest that many (most?) .home users will be using their > ISP's smarthost, I'll see your smarthost and raise you a webmail... how many home users are using an email client at all? -- Joe

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Fri 23 Mar 2018 at 16:08:27 -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, March 23, 2018 03:13:54 PM Brian wrote: > > On Fri 23 Mar 2018 at 12:01:42 -0500, David Wright wrote: > > > I venture to suggest that many (most?) .home users will be using their > > > ISP's smarthost, which would mean

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Friday, March 23, 2018 03:13:54 PM Brian wrote: > On Fri 23 Mar 2018 at 12:01:42 -0500, David Wright wrote: > > I venture to suggest that many (most?) .home users will be using their > > ISP's smarthost, which would mean that the ISP (a) usually insist on > > authentication and (b) and likely

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Fri 23 Mar 2018 at 10:46:22 -0500, David Wright wrote: > On Fri 23 Mar 2018 at 10:31:13 (-), Dan Purgert wrote: > > > > This is where things get messy, due to language. In the context that > > Greg is using, "receiver" is the ultimate destination MTA, and not the > > intermediary MTA(s)

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Fri 23 Mar 2018 at 12:01:42 -0500, David Wright wrote: > I venture to suggest that many (most?) .home users will be using their > ISP's smarthost, which would mean that the ISP (a) usually insist on > authentication and (b) and likely to have issued the network name > (like

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Fri 23 Mar 2018 at 17:38:52 (-), Dan Purgert wrote: > David Wright wrote: > > On Fri 23 Mar 2018 at 10:31:13 (-), Dan Purgert wrote: > >> [...] > >> The ones that're plastered all over the webmail interface that "joe > >> typical home user" uses, because thunderbird is too hard :). > >

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 20:31:28 +1100 terryc wrote: > On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:00:16 +0100 > wrote: > > > > To put that on stronger terms -- we'd end up with two and a half > > gatekeepers for mail: Google, Hotmail (aka Microsoft) and... who > > did I forget?

Re: domain names, was: hostname

David Wright wrote: > On Fri 23 Mar 2018 at 10:31:13 (-), Dan Purgert wrote: >> [...] >> The ones that're plastered all over the webmail interface that "joe >> typical home user" uses, because thunderbird is too hard :). > > You're now introducing another constituency of users who might not

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On 3/23/18 1:01 PM, David Wright wrote: On Fri 23 Mar 2018 at 11:59:06 (-0400), Miles Fidelman wrote: On 3/22/18 10:03 PM, David Wright wrote: On Thu 22 Mar 2018 at 20:26:26 (+), Brian wrote: On Thu 22 Mar 2018 at 12:44:53 -0500, David Wright wrote: [...] Here are my points, as it's

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Fri 23 Mar 2018 at 11:59:06 (-0400), Miles Fidelman wrote: > On 3/22/18 10:03 PM, David Wright wrote: > > >On Thu 22 Mar 2018 at 20:26:26 (+), Brian wrote: > >>On Thu 22 Mar 2018 at 12:44:53 -0500, David Wright wrote: > >> > >>[...] > >> > >>>Here are my points, as it's a month since I

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On 3/22/18 10:03 PM, David Wright wrote: On Thu 22 Mar 2018 at 20:26:26 (+), Brian wrote: On Thu 22 Mar 2018 at 12:44:53 -0500, David Wright wrote: [...] Here are my points, as it's a month since I made them. I didn't quite answer the question as posed. --✄-- that as well as

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 10:46:22AM -0500, David Wright wrote: > (Mind you, it was a query about the hostname that set this whole > thread off: https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2018/02/msg00639.html ) Most successful troll of the year, so far, by far.

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Fri 23 Mar 2018 at 10:31:13 (-), Dan Purgert wrote: > David Wright wrote: > > On Thu 22 Mar 2018 at 22:17:02 (-), Dan Purgert wrote: > >> David Wright wrote: > >> > On Thu 22 Mar 2018 at 08:58:43 (-0400), Greg Wooledge wrote: > >> >> [...] > >> >> An SMTP receiver SHOULD validate the

Re: domain names, was: hostname

David Wright wrote: > On Thu 22 Mar 2018 at 22:17:02 (-), Dan Purgert wrote: >> David Wright wrote: >> > On Thu 22 Mar 2018 at 08:58:43 (-0400), Greg Wooledge wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> An SMTP receiver SHOULD validate the recipient address right here, >> >> right now. It SHOULDN'T just accept

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Thu 22 Mar 2018 at 22:17:02 (-), Dan Purgert wrote: > David Wright wrote: > > On Thu 22 Mar 2018 at 08:58:43 (-0400), Greg Wooledge wrote: > >> [...] > >> An SMTP receiver SHOULD validate the recipient address right here, > >> right now. It SHOULDN'T just accept everything and then figure

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Thu 22 Mar 2018 at 20:26:26 (+), Brian wrote: > On Thu 22 Mar 2018 at 12:44:53 -0500, David Wright wrote: > > [...] > > > Here are my points, as it's a month since I made them. I didn't > > quite answer the question as posed. > > > > --✄-- > > > > > that as well as being asked to

Re: domain names, was: hostname

David Wright wrote: > On Thu 22 Mar 2018 at 08:58:43 (-0400), Greg Wooledge wrote: >> [...] >> An SMTP receiver SHOULD validate the recipient address right here, >> right now. It SHOULDN'T just accept everything and then figure out >> whether it's deliverable later -- that enables joe-job spam. >

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

Forest wrote: > Does this work better? Evolution rather than web-based email. definitely

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Thu 22 Mar 2018 at 12:44:53 -0500, David Wright wrote: [...] > Here are my points, as it's a month since I made them. I didn't > quite answer the question as posed. > > --✄-- > > > that as well as being asked to supply a hostname I've also been asked > > to supply a domain value. > > >

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:44:53PM -0500, David Wright wrote: > I don't need help because the smarthost I've chosen to use does not > insist on this. Then you're basically an end user, not a mail admin. > When I authenticate, I can send the mail anywhere, but it's tedious to > demonstrate here

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Thu 22 Mar 2018 at 08:58:43 (-0400), Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 06:59:04PM -0500, David Wright wrote: > > Sure, so in my case, I'd be forced to find out what my router's > > hostname is so that I can quote a hostname that will resolve to the > > address that I woud be

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 06:59:04PM -0500, David Wright wrote: > Sure, so in my case, I'd be forced to find out what my router's > hostname is so that I can quote a hostname that will resolve to the > address that I woud be posting on. Currently this appears to be > ip70-179-161-106.fv.ks.cox.net >

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 08:59:11 +0100 deloptes wrote: > David Wright wrote: > > > Sure, so in my case, I'd be forced to find out what my router's > > hostname is so that I can quote a hostname that will resolve to the > > address that I woud be posting on. Currently this

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

David Wright wrote: > Sure, so in my case, I'd be forced to find out what my router's > hostname is so that I can quote a hostname that will resolve to the > address that I woud be posting on. Currently this appears to be > ip70-179-161-106.fv.ks.cox.net these are not valid SMTP domain names. It

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

Am 2018-03-21 hackte terryc in die Tasten: > On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:00:16 +0100 > wrote: >> To put that on stronger terms -- we'd end up with two and a half >> gatekeepers for mail: Google, Hotmail (aka Microsoft) and... who >> did I forget? > > yahoo for a starter, then there

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Wed 21 Mar 2018 at 20:02:55 (+), Brian wrote: > On Tue 20 Mar 2018 at 17:07:47 -0500, David Wright wrote: > > > On Fri 23 Feb 2018 at 16:18:29 (+), Brian wrote: > > > > > > With > > > > > > 127.0.1.1 gmail > > > > > > in /etc/hosts the conversation would go like this: > > >

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

On Wed, 2018-03-21 at 21:59 +0100, deloptes wrote: > Forest Dean Feighner wrote: > > > Right on! I used to have an email server in the 90's and even hand > > wrote > > the sendmail config file, lol. > > > > Shell account, of course, at the local ISP. > > and that's why you first topposted and

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

On Wed 21 Mar 2018 at 16:21:44 (-0400), Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 02:53:47PM -0500, David Wright wrote: > > HELO dotlessdomainname > > HELO dotcontaining.home > > > > I want someone to explain to me why having a dot is better then not > > having a dot in deciding

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

Joe wrote: > Indeed. Exim4 is fairly easy to configure either way. yes indeed, it took me only one month to write all the rules required (with irony)

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

Greg Wooledge wrote: > My understanding: the SMTP receiver will use whatever heuristics it > finds appropriate to avoid receiving spam. > > One heuristic that is commonly used is to reject all messages where > the HELO doesn't even syntactically qualify as a valid FQDN -- in other > words, has

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

Forest Dean Feighner wrote: > gmail... > > I have little to add. next time try the "..." on the bottom of the reply message before writing anything. it does wonder ;-) regards

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > +100 > > To put that on stronger terms -- we'd end up with two and a half > gatekeepers for mail: Google, Hotmail (aka Microsoft) and... who > did I forget? > > The same nightmare we have at the moment with the so-called "social" > networks. > > They are already

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

gmail... I have little to add. On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 4:59 PM, deloptes wrote: > Forest Dean Feighner wrote: > > > Right on! I used to have an email server in the 90's and even hand wrote > > the sendmail config file, lol. > > > > Shell account, of course, at the local

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

Forest Dean Feighner wrote: > Right on! I used to have an email server in the 90's and even hand wrote > the sendmail config file, lol. > > Shell account, of course, at the local ISP. and that's why you first topposted and secondly contributed with very meaningful content. :D

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 16:21:44 -0400 Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 02:53:47PM -0500, David Wright wrote: > > HELO dotlessdomainname > > HELO dotcontaining.home > > > > I want someone to explain to me why having a dot is better then not > > having

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 02:53:47PM -0500, David Wright wrote: > HELO dotlessdomainname > HELO dotcontaining.home > > I want someone to explain to me why having a dot is better then not > having a dot in deciding whether a submitter is genuine. And > without the politics. My

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Tue 20 Mar 2018 at 17:07:47 -0500, David Wright wrote: > On Fri 23 Feb 2018 at 16:18:29 (+), Brian wrote: > > > > With > > > > 127.0.1.1 gmail > > > > in /etc/hosts the conversation would go like this: > > > > brian@desktop:~$ telnet bendel.debian.org 25 > > Trying

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

On Wed 21 Mar 2018 at 09:50:15 (+1100), Ben Finney wrote: > David Wright writes: > > > I don't understand why a home user would not be using a smarthost. > > Perhaps we're talking about a different group of people. Why would a > > home user want to relay mail rather

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Wed 21 Mar 2018 at 16:34:13 +1300, Richard Hector wrote: > On 21/03/18 12:07, Brian wrote: > > [re inability to connect to remote SMTP servers] > > > You are in an unfortunate position of being deprived of the freedom to > > decide how to deal with your own communications. > > [snip] > > >

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On 2018-02-23 12:54, Dan Purgert wrote: David Wright wrote: On Mon 19 Feb 2018 at 18:39:02 (+), Brian wrote: [...] alum is the canonical_hostname. It is used by exim to HELO with. Many mail servers will not accept mail directly from you because it is not a FQDN. This is why I wrote

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:00:16 +0100 wrote: > To put that on stronger terms -- we'd end up with two and a half > gatekeepers for mail: Google, Hotmail (aka Microsoft) and... who > did I forget? yahoo for a starter, then there is that French mob OVH and the NL mob > > The

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 09:50:15AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > David Wright writes: > > > I don't understand why a home user would not be using a smarthost. [...] > First, note that even if you don't know the reason why

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On 21/03/18 12:07, Brian wrote: [re inability to connect to remote SMTP servers] > You are in an unfortunate position of being deprived of the freedom to > decide how to deal with your own communications. [snip] > I am a user of the network, whether I am at home or not. I have no > better

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

Right on! I used to have an email server in the 90's and even hand wrote the sendmail config file, lol. Shell account, of course, at the local ISP. On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 7:13 PM, Forest Dean Feighner < forest.feigh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Right on! I used to have an email server in the 90's

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Tue 20 Mar 2018 at 17:07:47 -0500, David Wright wrote: > On Fri 23 Feb 2018 at 16:18:29 (+), Brian wrote: > > On Thu 22 Feb 2018 at 11:58:18 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > > > > On Mon 19 Feb 2018 at 18:39:02 (+), Brian wrote: > > > > On Mon 19 Feb 2018 at 10:23:56 -0600, David Wright

Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

David Wright writes: > I don't understand why a home user would not be using a smarthost. > Perhaps we're talking about a different group of people. Why would a > home user want to relay mail rather than submit it to a smarthost? First, note that even if you don't know

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Fri 23 Feb 2018 at 16:18:29 (+), Brian wrote: > On Thu 22 Feb 2018 at 11:58:18 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > > On Mon 19 Feb 2018 at 18:39:02 (+), Brian wrote: > > > On Mon 19 Feb 2018 at 10:23:56 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > > > > > > 127.0.0.1 localhost > > > > 127.0.1.1

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Mon 26 Feb 2018 at 10:45:29 (+), Curt wrote: > On 2018-02-23, Brian wrote: > > On Thu 22 Feb 2018 at 11:58:18 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > > >> On Mon 19 Feb 2018 at 18:39:02 (+), Brian wrote: > >> > On Mon 19 Feb 2018 at 10:23:56 -0600, David Wright wrote: > >>

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On 2018-02-23, Brian wrote: > On Thu 22 Feb 2018 at 11:58:18 -0600, David Wright wrote: > >> On Mon 19 Feb 2018 at 18:39:02 (+), Brian wrote: >> > On Mon 19 Feb 2018 at 10:23:56 -0600, David Wright wrote: >> > >> > > $ cat /etc/mailname >> > > alum >> > >> > Debian's

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Fri 23 Feb 2018 at 12:53:34 (+), Brian wrote: > On Thu 22 Feb 2018 at 11:58:18 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > > On Mon 19 Feb 2018 at 18:39:02 (+), Brian wrote: > > > On Mon 19 Feb 2018 at 10:23:56 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > > > > > > $ cat /etc/mailname > > > > alum > > > > > >

Re: domain names, was: hostname

Op 21-02-18 om 16:11 schreef Curt: https://icannwiki.org/.home TLD;DR Name Collision Concerns Impede Delegation ICANN hired firm Interisle Consulting to carry out an independent investigation on the issues that may arise from new gTLDs that are identical to TLDs being used on internal

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 12:54:10 - (UTC) Dan Purgert wrote: > > While this may be true in many cases, my local (home) relay *only* > accepts relay requests from hosts within the scope of my domain. > Granted, now that I've moved ISPs, some remote mailhosts (hotmail, > I'm

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Thu 22 Feb 2018 at 11:58:18 -0600, David Wright wrote: > On Mon 19 Feb 2018 at 18:39:02 (+), Brian wrote: > > On Mon 19 Feb 2018 at 10:23:56 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > > > > 127.0.0.1 localhost > > > 127.0.1.1 alum > > > > alum is the canonical_hostname. It is used by

Re: domain names, was: hostname

David Wright wrote: > On Mon 19 Feb 2018 at 18:39:02 (+), Brian wrote: >> [...] >> alum is the canonical_hostname. It is used by exim to HELO with. Many >> mail servers will not accept mail directly from you because it is not a >> FQDN. > > This is why I wrote "broken" at ². The OP wrote "on a

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Thu 22 Feb 2018 at 11:58:18 -0600, David Wright wrote: > On Mon 19 Feb 2018 at 18:39:02 (+), Brian wrote: > > On Mon 19 Feb 2018 at 10:23:56 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > > > > $ cat /etc/mailname > > > alum > > > > Debian's exim4 README says that mailname should be a FQDN. I find that

Re: domain names, was: hostname

In case it's not clear, hostname:foo (in /etc/hostname), domain: example.com (name of a registered domain), domain name: I'll try to avoid, domainname: foo.example.com (also variously called FQDN, canonical hostname). On Mon 19 Feb 2018 at 18:39:02 (+), Brian wrote: > On Mon 19 Feb

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On 2018-02-21, Reco wrote: >> > >> > ".local" is out too -- reserved for mDNS (bonjour / avahi ). >> >> Oh, for gawd's sake. Is there not an RFC for local domains ? > > There is, see RFC 7788 and RFC 8244. ".home", while being controversial, > is probably fine. And

Re: domain names, was: hostname

Hi. On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:23:51AM +, Darac Marjal wrote: > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 09:00:52AM +0300, Reco wrote: > > Hi. > > > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 01:05:41AM +, mick crane wrote: > > > On 2018-02-21 00:33, Dan Purgert wrote: > > > > mick crane wrote: > > > > > On

Re: domain names, was: hostname

Hi. On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 06:56:01AM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Wednesday 21 February 2018 01:00:52 Reco wrote: > > > Hi. > > > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 01:05:41AM +, mick crane wrote: > > > On 2018-02-21 00:33, Dan Purgert wrote: > > > > mick crane wrote: > > > > > On

Re: domain names, was: hostname

Darac Marjal wrote: >>> [...] >>> Oh, for gawd's sake. Is there not an RFC for local domains ? >> >>There is, see RFC 7788 and RFC 8244. ".home", while being controversial, >>is probably fine. And there's ".test", which is perfectly fine as far as >>RFC 6761 concerned. > > There is a solution to

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Wednesday 21 February 2018 01:00:52 Reco wrote: > Hi. > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 01:05:41AM +, mick crane wrote: > > On 2018-02-21 00:33, Dan Purgert wrote: > > > mick crane wrote: > > > > On 2018-02-20 19:36, Jeremy Nicoll wrote: > > > > ,snipped> > > > > > > > > > Other than that,

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 09:00:52AM +0300, Reco wrote: Hi. On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 01:05:41AM +, mick crane wrote: On 2018-02-21 00:33, Dan Purgert wrote: > mick crane wrote: > > On 2018-02-20 19:36, Jeremy Nicoll wrote: > > ,snipped> > > > Other than that, opinion seems divided on

Re: domain names, was: hostname

Hi. On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 01:05:41AM +, mick crane wrote: > On 2018-02-21 00:33, Dan Purgert wrote: > > mick crane wrote: > > > On 2018-02-20 19:36, Jeremy Nicoll wrote: > > > ,snipped> > > > > Other than that, opinion seems divided on whether for a home LAN it > > > > makes more

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 12:33 AM, Dan Purgert wrote: > ".local" is out too -- reserved for mDNS (bonjour / avahi ). How about .lan, .dmz, and .wan? (Not allowed to or from the 'Net, of course.) -- Glenn English

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On 2018-02-21 00:33, Dan Purgert wrote: mick crane wrote: On 2018-02-20 19:36, Jeremy Nicoll wrote: ,snipped> Other than that, opinion seems divided on whether for a home LAN it makes more sense to leave domain name unset, or to provide a value (picked carefully, perhaps ending ".test" or

Re: domain names, was: hostname

mick crane wrote: > On 2018-02-20 19:36, Jeremy Nicoll wrote: > ,snipped> >> Other than that, opinion seems divided on whether for a home LAN it >> makes more sense to leave domain name unset, or to provide a value >> (picked carefully, perhaps ending ".test" or ".invalid"). In some >> ways >>

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On 2018-02-20 19:36, Jeremy Nicoll wrote: ,snipped> Other than that, opinion seems divided on whether for a home LAN it makes more sense to leave domain name unset, or to provide a value (picked carefully, perhaps ending ".test" or ".invalid"). In some ways I like the idea of providing a

Re: domain names, was: hostname

Jeremy Nicoll wrote: > Thanks to everyone who replied, not just Dan... > > So... > > On Mon, 19 Feb 2018, at 13:30, Dan Purgert wrote: >> Jeremy Nicoll wrote: > >> > What, on a home LAN, is that used for? >> >> In general terms, supplying domain information at setup time adds a >> "helper" record

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018, at 19:42, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 07:36:49PM +, Jeremy Nicoll wrote: > > Do you mean when someone outside the LAN is trying to connect to my > > machine? > > No. It's for when you try to look up a hostname without a domain. > > For example, if

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 07:36:49PM +, Jeremy Nicoll wrote: > > In short, the "helper" record appends the domain name to a hostname, so > > you don't have to type out a FQDN when you're trying to get to a remote > > host. > > Do you mean when someone outside the LAN is trying to connect to my

Re: domain names, was: hostname

Thanks to everyone who replied, not just Dan... So... On Mon, 19 Feb 2018, at 13:30, Dan Purgert wrote: > Jeremy Nicoll wrote: > > What, on a home LAN, is that used for? > > In general terms, supplying domain information at setup time adds a > "helper" record to /etc/resolv.conf (or whatever

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Monday, February 19, 2018 03:59:18 PM Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > Essentially, you cannot guarantee that any arbirtary second-level or > lower domain will remain unused. However, there are reserved top-level > domains guaranteed to not be used in any standards-compliant > implementation and you

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 08:48:10PM +, Brian wrote: > > .invalid should fit the bill. You don't get much help on this from the > installer in expert mode though. My point was - how do you know what is > non-existent? knickersoff.com was a revelation to me! > It is all documented:

Re: domain names, was: hostname

Hi. On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 08:30:28PM +, Joe wrote: > On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 19:28:55 + > Brian wrote: > > > On Mon 19 Feb 2018 at 19:08:42 +, Brad Rogers wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 18:58:25 + > > > Brian wrote: > > >

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Mon 19 Feb 2018 at 20:30:28 +, Joe wrote: > On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 19:28:55 + > Brian wrote: > > > On Mon 19 Feb 2018 at 19:08:42 +, Brad Rogers wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 18:58:25 + > > > Brian wrote: > > > > > > Hello

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 19:28:55 + Brian wrote: > On Mon 19 Feb 2018 at 19:08:42 +, Brad Rogers wrote: > > > On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 18:58:25 + > > Brian wrote: > > > > Hello Brian, > > > > >Avoiding using any of the examples you give is also

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Mon 19 Feb 2018 at 19:08:42 +, Brad Rogers wrote: > On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 18:58:25 + > Brian wrote: > > Hello Brian, > > >Avoiding using any of the examples you give is also recommended because > >you do not own the domain name google.com and have no right to use

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 18:58:25 + Brian wrote: Hello Brian, >Avoiding using any of the examples you give is also recommended because >you do not own the domain name google.com and have no right to use it. I took that as a given. Still, it's probably as well to point it

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Mon 19 Feb 2018 at 17:27:38 +, Brad Rogers wrote: > On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 12:28:03 + > Jeremy Nicoll wrote: > > Hello Jeremy, > > >What, on a home LAN, is that used for? > > Domain name may be used by your MUA for generating Message IDs(1) > amongst

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Mon 19 Feb 2018 at 10:23:56 -0600, David Wright wrote: > On Mon 19 Feb 2018 at 12:28:03 (+), Jeremy Nicoll wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Feb 2018, at 16:21, Dan Purgert wrote: > > > > > > Later, once you understand how a local network works, you can come > > > > up with a theme. Or some

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 12:28:03 + Jeremy Nicoll wrote: Hello Jeremy, >What, on a home LAN, is that used for? Domain name may be used by your MUA for generating Message IDs(1) amongst other things. It doesn't really matter what you select, but I'd avoid using

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Mon 19 Feb 2018 at 12:28:03 (+), Jeremy Nicoll wrote: > On Thu, 15 Feb 2018, at 16:21, Dan Purgert wrote: > > > > Later, once you understand how a local network works, you can come > > > up with a theme. Or some convention that lets you identify the > > > computer by its name. The name

Re: domain names, was: hostname

Jeremy Nicoll wrote: > On Thu, 15 Feb 2018, at 16:21, Dan Purgert wrote: > >> > Later, once you understand how a local network works, you can come >> > up with a theme. Or some convention that lets you identify the >> > computer by its name. The name that you have chosen. > > Machine-naming

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018, at 16:21, Dan Purgert wrote: > > Later, once you understand how a local network works, you can come > > up with a theme. Or some convention that lets you identify the > > computer by its name. The name that you have chosen. Machine-naming makes sense to me - having done