Re: line lengths in /etc/hosts
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 01:57:48 -0700, Perry Hutchison wrote: > Is there a limit on line length in FreeBSD's /etc/hosts? > > I'm not finding any mention of such a limit in hosts(5), but characters > beyond the first 660 or so seem to be ignored. > > To answer the inevitable followup "why would anyone need such a long > line in /etc/hosts": > > With this line in /etc/nsswitch.conf > > hosts: files dns > > I can easily suppress access to unwanted web sites by adding names to > the localhost line in /etc/hosts, like this: > > 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.my.domain bad1.com bad2.com ... > > My version of that line has gotten rather long :) $ tail -20 /etc/hosts 127.0.0.1 r1.zedo.com 127.0.0.1 simg.zedo.com 127.0.0.1 ss1.zedo.com 127.0.0.1 ss2.zedo.com 127.0.0.1 ss7.zedo.com 127.0.0.1 xads.zedo.com 127.0.0.1 yads.zedo.com 127.0.0.1 www.zedo.com #[Adware.RaxSearch] 127.0.0.1 c1.zxxds.net #[g1.panthercdn.com] 127.0.0.1 c7.zxxds.net # [Zero Lag][AS20093][67.201.0.0 - 67.201.63.255] 127.0.0.1 ads.namiflow.com 127.0.0.1 adunit.namiflow.com # [Zero Lag][AS20093][68.71.240.0 - 68.71.255.255] 127.0.0.1 rt.udmserve.net # [Zero Lag][AS20093][72.37.216.0 - 72.37.217.255] 127.0.0.1 www.stickylogic.com 127.0.0.1 www.winadiscount.com #[Dr.Web.Adware.Xbarre] 127.0.0.1 www.winaproduct.com # [end of entries generated by MVPS HOSTS] $ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: line lengths in /etc/hosts
Hi, On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:09:29 +0100 Erik Nørgaard wrote: > On 27 Mar 2013, at 09:57, per...@pluto.rain.com (Perry Hutchison) > wrote: > > > Is there a limit on line length in FreeBSD's /etc/hosts? > > > > I'm not finding any mention of such a limit in hosts(5), but > > characters beyond the first 660 or so seem to be ignored. > > > > To answer the inevitable followup "why would anyone need such > > a long line in /etc/hosts": > > > > With this line in /etc/nsswitch.conf > > > > hosts: files dns > > > > I can easily suppress access to unwanted web sites by adding > > names to the localhost line in /etc/hosts, like this: > > > > 127.0.0.1localhost localhost.my.domain bad1.com bad2.com ... > > > > My version of that line has gotten rather long :) > > AFAIK you can have multiple lines. > yes, I have hundreds or even thousands of lines and never ran into any problems. Erich ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: line lengths in /etc/hosts
On 27 Mar 2013, at 09:57, per...@pluto.rain.com (Perry Hutchison) wrote: > Is there a limit on line length in FreeBSD's /etc/hosts? > > I'm not finding any mention of such a limit in hosts(5), but > characters beyond the first 660 or so seem to be ignored. > > To answer the inevitable followup "why would anyone need such > a long line in /etc/hosts": > > With this line in /etc/nsswitch.conf > > hosts: files dns > > I can easily suppress access to unwanted web sites by adding > names to the localhost line in /etc/hosts, like this: > > 127.0.0.1localhost localhost.my.domain bad1.com bad2.com ... > > My version of that line has gotten rather long :) AFAIK you can have multiple lines. BR ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: line lengths in /etc/hosts
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 01:57:48 -0700, Perry Hutchison wrote: > I can easily suppress access to unwanted web sites by adding > names to the localhost line in /etc/hosts, like this: > > 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.my.domain bad1.com bad2.com ... > > My version of that line has gotten rather long :) Without actually havint tested this, but have you considered using the \ continuation character (linebreak escape) to avoid the problem? Also I think there's not a generic limit to the /etc/hosts file itself, but maybe to the input buffers of the programs that read this file... -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
line lengths in /etc/hosts
Is there a limit on line length in FreeBSD's /etc/hosts? I'm not finding any mention of such a limit in hosts(5), but characters beyond the first 660 or so seem to be ignored. To answer the inevitable followup "why would anyone need such a long line in /etc/hosts": With this line in /etc/nsswitch.conf hosts: files dns I can easily suppress access to unwanted web sites by adding names to the localhost line in /etc/hosts, like this: 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.my.domain bad1.com bad2.com ... My version of that line has gotten rather long :) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: sendmail and /etc/hosts
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Gabor Illo wrote: > Hello > > My problem: sendmail skipping /etc/host and use MX record. Somebody > have any ide how use sendmail /etc/host file? > > Dec 9 20:58:23 www sm-mta[29438]: oB9Fxmx0027174: > to=, delay=03:58:35, xdelay=00:00:00, mailer=esmtp, > pri=1313137, relay=mail.mouseoleum.hu., dsn=4.0.0, stat=Deferred: > Connection refused by mail.mouseoleum.hu. > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > Could you clarify in regards to what you want sendmail to actually use /etc/host for? If your intent is to re-map where mail destined for a given host/domain goes - (ie override DNS MX records) - then /etc/hosts is not going to do what you want. Depending on where you intend to redirect to, you'll need either mailer table, access table entries or to configure your local sendmail to receive for that domain to accomplish that. You might try reading further at: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/mail-using.html Specifically in regards to email and DNS relationships. -- Nathan Vidican nat...@vidican.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
sendmail and /etc/hosts
Hello My problem: sendmail skipping /etc/host and use MX record. Somebody have any ide how use sendmail /etc/host file? Dec 9 20:58:23 www sm-mta[29438]: oB9Fxmx0027174: to=, delay=03:58:35, xdelay=00:00:00, mailer=esmtp, pri=1313137, relay=mail.mouseoleum.hu., dsn=4.0.0, stat=Deferred: Connection refused by mail.mouseoleum.hu. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: /etc/hosts - how does that file work?? - was weird nfs issues.
On Saturday 06 June 2009 20:44:38 Tim Judd wrote: > On 6/4/09, Peter wrote: > > I do not think /etc/hosts does round robin, I always assumed first match > > wins...DNS/bind I would understand... It's the same library call: gethostbyname(3) and friends. > > Why does ping always return the 172.20.6.1 address, > > and ftp,nc,ssh,telnet,fetch _always_ uses the 116 address? Again: client implementation is allowed to pick whichever it wants. > why are you so hung up on dual IPs for a single host? would dnsmasq > provide a solution to dual A records for one resource? Gotta agree with Tim here. I don't see the point for having two nets on one interface. They'll be hard to keep secure with firewall rules if you run the same services on them. > I'll help, when I can. but forcing this on /etc/hosts is a dead end. Problem is that nfs and DNS don't work well at all. For nfs best use IP or /etc/hosts. One drawback of using DNS with nfs is that if the hostname cannot be resolved (network down, typo), one can also not get a console when it goes to single user mode [1] and has to reboot via power button. /etc/fstab is supposed to be static to begin with. It's supposed to provide the mountpoints the system can count on, so using IP's for nfs is preferred. For the more dynamic nfs mounts, one can use hostnames and use noauto in the options column. [1] http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=128448 -- Mel ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: /etc/hosts - how does that file work?? - was weird nfs issues.
On 6/4/09, Peter wrote: >> On Thursday 04 June 2009 20:48:21 Peter wrote: >>> iH, >>> This all started with NFS not mounting at bootso, testing in VMs: >> >> >> >>> Why is ping using one IP, and ssh/mount_nfs/showmount using another IP > from /etc/hosts? >> >> Q: Where is described that name resolution for A or PTR records should > be >> returned in a fixed order and that a consumer should always use the > first >> one >> returned? >> A: Nowhere. Name servers are encouraged to do round-robin returns if not > specified otherwise. Applications may sort/pick at their own leisure. >> >> -- >> Mel > > I do not think /etc/hosts does round robin, I always assumed first match > wins...DNS/bind I would understand... > > Why does ping always return the 172.20.6.1 address, > and ftp,nc,ssh,telnet,fetch _always_ uses the 116 address? > > I would assume at least sometimes it would hit the 172 address with > anything besides ping - but it only ping hits the 172 address... > If so, I'd guess there would be consistency between ping lookups and > 'telnet/ssh/etc' lookups... > > Why if the 116.23.45.3 last octet is bumped up, everything _always_ > returns the 172 address? > > client# grep server /etc/hosts > 172.20.6.1 server.test server > 116.23.45.5 server.test server > client# telnet server > Trying 172.20.6.1... > telnet: connect to address 172.20.6.1: Connection refused > Trying 116.23.45.5... > > /etc/hosts - 'server' changed to > 116.23.45.3: > > client# telnet server > Trying 116.23.45.3... > telnet: connect to address 116.23.45.3: Operation timed out > Trying 172.20.6.1... > telnet: connect to address 172.20.6.1: Connection refused > telnet: Unable to connect to remote host > > if server has ip>116.23.45.3, it always uses the 172 address first... > > but ping always uses the 172... > even if third entry is added into /etc/hosts - nothing ever uses it as the > first/primary IP. > > Is there an algorithm based on IP/program being used and the returned IP? > I can't sit and watch this thread anymore. Something itchin' to say: DNS, who can handle multiple A records in an optional round-robin design, is perfectly fine to assign multiple A records to a resource. /etc/hosts, which as always existed (back when the Internet was created/new), was a unique record source only. Having oddities in /etc/hosts is expected IMHO when a "mistake" like multiple resources assigned different records. What's to stop you from creating slightly different records in /etc/hosts? Whats to stop you from hitting 'privserver' and 'pubserver', for private and public IPs respectively. why are you so hung up on dual IPs for a single host? would dnsmasq provide a solution to dual A records for one resource? I'll help, when I can. but forcing this on /etc/hosts is a dead end. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: /etc/hosts - how does that file work?? - was weird nfs issues.
> On Thursday 04 June 2009 20:48:21 Peter wrote: >> iH, >> This all started with NFS not mounting at bootso, testing in VMs: > > > >> Why is ping using one IP, and ssh/mount_nfs/showmount using another IP from /etc/hosts? > > Q: Where is described that name resolution for A or PTR records should be > returned in a fixed order and that a consumer should always use the first > one > returned? > A: Nowhere. Name servers are encouraged to do round-robin returns if not specified otherwise. Applications may sort/pick at their own leisure. > > -- > Mel I do not think /etc/hosts does round robin, I always assumed first match wins...DNS/bind I would understand... Why does ping always return the 172.20.6.1 address, and ftp,nc,ssh,telnet,fetch _always_ uses the 116 address? I would assume at least sometimes it would hit the 172 address with anything besides ping - but it only ping hits the 172 address... If so, I'd guess there would be consistency between ping lookups and 'telnet/ssh/etc' lookups... Why if the 116.23.45.3 last octet is bumped up, everything _always_ returns the 172 address? client# grep server /etc/hosts 172.20.6.1 server.test server 116.23.45.5 server.test server client# telnet server Trying 172.20.6.1... telnet: connect to address 172.20.6.1: Connection refused Trying 116.23.45.5... /etc/hosts - 'server' changed to 116.23.45.3: client# telnet server Trying 116.23.45.3... telnet: connect to address 116.23.45.3: Operation timed out Trying 172.20.6.1... telnet: connect to address 172.20.6.1: Connection refused telnet: Unable to connect to remote host if server has ip>116.23.45.3, it always uses the 172 address first... but ping always uses the 172... even if third entry is added into /etc/hosts - nothing ever uses it as the first/primary IP. Is there an algorithm based on IP/program being used and the returned IP? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: /etc/hosts - how does that file work?? - was weird nfs issues.
On Thursday 04 June 2009 20:48:21 Peter wrote: > iH, > This all started with NFS not mounting at bootso, testing in VMs: > Why is ping using one IP, and ssh/mount_nfs/showmount using another IP > from /etc/hosts? Q: Where is described that name resolution for A or PTR records should be returned in a fixed order and that a consumer should always use the first one returned? A: Nowhere. Name servers are encouraged to do round-robin returns if not specified otherwise. Applications may sort/pick at their own leisure. -- Mel ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
/etc/hosts - how does that file work?? - was weird nfs issues.
iH, This all started with NFS not mounting at bootso, testing in VMs: This is a fresh/generic install of 7.2-REL no firewall em1=10.21.20.0/24 network - DHCP for ssh access client# uname -a FreeBSD client.test 7.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 7.2-RELEASE #0: Fri May 1 08:49:13 UTC 2009 r...@walker.cse.buffalo.edu:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC i386 client# cat /etc/rc.conf gateway_enable="YES" hostname="client.test" ifconfig_em0="inet 172.20.6.2 netmask 255.255.255.0" ifconfig_em0_alias0="inet 116.23.45.2 netmask 255.255.255.0" ifconfig_em1="DHCP" nfs_client_enable="YES" nfs_server_enable="NO" rpcbind_enable="NO" sshd_enable="YES" client# ifconfig em0|grep inet inet 172.20.6.2 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 172.20.6.255 inet 116.23.45.2 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 116.23.45.255 client# cat /etc/hosts ::1 localhost localhost.test 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.test 172.20.6.2 client.test client 116.23.45.2 client.test client 172.20.6.1 server.test server 116.23.45.3 server.test server client# ping -c1 server PING server.test (172.20.6.1): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 172.20.6.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=5.811 ms --- server.test ping statistics --- 1 packets transmitted, 1 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 5.811/5.811/5.811/0.000 ms client# ssh -vvv server OpenSSH_5.1p1 FreeBSD-20080901, OpenSSL 0.9.8e 23 Feb 2007 debug1: Reading configuration data /etc/ssh/ssh_config debug2: ssh_connect: needpriv 0 debug1: Connecting to server.test [116.23.45.3] port 22. ^C client# ssh to 'server' always goes to 116.23.45.3 IP there is nothing on '116.23.45.3' IP '116.23.45.3/24' is a made up network for testing BUT... client# ifconfig em0|grep inet inet 172.20.6.2 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 172.20.6.255 inet 116.23.45.2 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 116.23.45.255 client# cat /etc/hosts ::1 localhost localhost.test 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.test 172.20.6.2 client.test client 116.23.45.2 client.test client 172.20.6.1 server.test server 116.23.45.4 server.test server client# ping -c1 server PING server.test (172.20.6.1): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 172.20.6.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.285 ms --- server.test ping statistics --- 1 packets transmitted, 1 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.285/0.285/0.285/0.000 ms client# ssh -vvv server OpenSSH_5.1p1 FreeBSD-20080901, OpenSSL 0.9.8e 23 Feb 2007 debug1: Reading configuration data /etc/ssh/ssh_config debug2: ssh_connect: needpriv 0 debug1: Connecting to server.test [172.20.6.1] port 22. debug1: Connection established. ... .. Why if the secondary entry is higher than '116.23.45.3' it always goes to 172/24 network? Why is ping using one IP, and ssh/mount_nfs/showmount using another IP from /etc/hosts? ]confused[ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Canonical way for DHCP->IP->/etc/hosts
Greg Larkin skrev:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Roger Olofsson wrote:
Jeff Laine skrev:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 02:00:12PM +0100, Roger Olofsson wrote:
Dear mailing list,
I am sorry if this question has been asked over and over again -
however the htdig search interface for the lists is somewhat shaky
and gives referrer errors for me.
Pre-conditions.
Dualhomed firewalled FreeBSD7.1. One nic is LAN and the other
dynamical IP from ISP.
Question: What is the canonical way for catching the IP address from
a DHCP assigned nic (from ISP that doesn't set hostname) and put the
IP into /etc/hosts with a hostname?
Reason for asking
Firewall rules needs refreshing after new IP
Possible answers:
Create dhcp-exit-hooks (undocumented?) in /etc like so:
#!/bin/sh
if [ ! -z "$new_ip_address" ]; then
IP=`ifconfig WAN | grep 'inet' | grep -v 'inet6' | cut -f 2 -d ' '`
if [ ! -z "$IP" ]; then
echo "$IPwan.local.domain wan" >> /etc/hosts
fi
fi
Hello. I think pf can handle with dhcp updates on interfaces pretty well.
If only I get your question right.
Hi Jeff and thank you for your reply,
Yes, I know that pf will handle interfaces just fine, the question was
not specific to pf though but more around dhclient, dhclient-script and
the part of dhclient-script that calls the undocumented
dhclient-exit-hooks.
It might be handy to have the external IP assigned to a hostname - not
only for pf.
/R
Hi Roger,
I wrote a blog post about automatically configuring /etc/hosts with a
DHCP dynamic IP address earlier this year:
http://blog.sourcehosting.net/tag/dhcp/. You can download a ZIP file
with the dhclient-exit-hook script in it near the bottom of the page.
In my case, I also wrote some commands to update the Apache httpd.conf
file with the correct ServerName directive. You can easily remove that
from the script if you don't need it.
If you need any assistance, let me know.
Regards,
Greg
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAklG1FEACgkQ0sRouByUApB1SACgmfJ4EtiyKdhyPgILZyc77Fxc
gHMAnRGGBWIya0Fg314LyrJZq9tTZvbj
=jHL5
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.18/1849 - Release Date: 2008-12-15 09:01
Hello Greg,
Thank you very much. I guess this is the canonical way of doing it.
/R
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Canonical way for DHCP->IP->/etc/hosts
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Roger Olofsson wrote: > > > Jeff Laine skrev: >> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 02:00:12PM +0100, Roger Olofsson wrote: >>> Dear mailing list, >>> >>> I am sorry if this question has been asked over and over again - >>> however the htdig search interface for the lists is somewhat shaky >>> and gives referrer errors for me. >>> >>> Pre-conditions. >>> Dualhomed firewalled FreeBSD7.1. One nic is LAN and the other >>> dynamical IP from ISP. >>> >>> Question: What is the canonical way for catching the IP address from >>> a DHCP assigned nic (from ISP that doesn't set hostname) and put the >>> IP into /etc/hosts with a hostname? >>> >>> Reason for asking >>> Firewall rules needs refreshing after new IP >>> >>> Possible answers: >>> Create dhcp-exit-hooks (undocumented?) in /etc like so: >>> >>> #!/bin/sh >>> >>> if [ ! -z "$new_ip_address" ]; then >>> IP=`ifconfig WAN | grep 'inet' | grep -v 'inet6' | cut -f 2 -d ' '` >>> if [ ! -z "$IP" ]; then >>> echo "$IPwan.local.domain wan" >> /etc/hosts >>> >>> >>> >>> fi >>> fi >>> >> >> Hello. I think pf can handle with dhcp updates on interfaces pretty well. >> If only I get your question right. >> >> >> > > Hi Jeff and thank you for your reply, > > Yes, I know that pf will handle interfaces just fine, the question was > not specific to pf though but more around dhclient, dhclient-script and > the part of dhclient-script that calls the undocumented > dhclient-exit-hooks. > > It might be handy to have the external IP assigned to a hostname - not > only for pf. > > /R Hi Roger, I wrote a blog post about automatically configuring /etc/hosts with a DHCP dynamic IP address earlier this year: http://blog.sourcehosting.net/tag/dhcp/. You can download a ZIP file with the dhclient-exit-hook script in it near the bottom of the page. In my case, I also wrote some commands to update the Apache httpd.conf file with the correct ServerName directive. You can easily remove that from the script if you don't need it. If you need any assistance, let me know. Regards, Greg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAklG1FEACgkQ0sRouByUApB1SACgmfJ4EtiyKdhyPgILZyc77Fxc gHMAnRGGBWIya0Fg314LyrJZq9tTZvbj =jHL5 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Canonical way for DHCP->IP->/etc/hosts
Jeff Laine skrev: On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 02:00:12PM +0100, Roger Olofsson wrote: Dear mailing list, I am sorry if this question has been asked over and over again - however the htdig search interface for the lists is somewhat shaky and gives referrer errors for me. Pre-conditions. Dualhomed firewalled FreeBSD7.1. One nic is LAN and the other dynamical IP from ISP. Question: What is the canonical way for catching the IP address from a DHCP assigned nic (from ISP that doesn't set hostname) and put the IP into /etc/hosts with a hostname? Reason for asking Firewall rules needs refreshing after new IP Possible answers: Create dhcp-exit-hooks (undocumented?) in /etc like so: #!/bin/sh if [ ! -z "$new_ip_address" ]; then IP=`ifconfig WAN | grep 'inet' | grep -v 'inet6' | cut -f 2 -d ' '` if [ ! -z "$IP" ]; then echo "$IP wan.local.domain wan" >> /etc/hosts fi fi Hello. I think pf can handle with dhcp updates on interfaces pretty well. If only I get your question right. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.17/1847 - Release Date: 2008-12-13 16:56 Hi Jeff and thank you for your reply, Yes, I know that pf will handle interfaces just fine, the question was not specific to pf though but more around dhclient, dhclient-script and the part of dhclient-script that calls the undocumented dhclient-exit-hooks. It might be handy to have the external IP assigned to a hostname - not only for pf. /R ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Canonical way for DHCP->IP->/etc/hosts
I am sorry if this question has been asked over and over again - however the htdig search interface for the lists is somewhat shaky and gives referrer errors for me. Pre-conditions. Dualhomed firewalled FreeBSD7.1. One nic is LAN and the other dynamical IP from ISP. Question: What is the canonical way for catching the IP address from a DHCP assigned nic (from ISP that doesn't set hostname) and put the IP into /etc/hosts with a hostname? man dhclient.conf you can specify your script that will be started on changes, but i won't tell you ready-to-use example because i never needed it. write your script that will fix /etc/hosts on IP change. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Canonical way for DHCP->IP->/etc/hosts
Roger Olofsson skrev:
Dear mailing list,
I am sorry if this question has been asked over and over again - however
the htdig search interface for the lists is somewhat shaky and gives
referrer errors for me.
Pre-conditions.
Dualhomed firewalled FreeBSD7.1. One nic is LAN and the other dynamical
IP from ISP.
Question: What is the canonical way for catching the IP address from a
DHCP assigned nic (from ISP that doesn't set hostname) and put the IP
into /etc/hosts with a hostname?
Reason for asking
Firewall rules needs refreshing after new IP
Possible answers:
Create dhcp-exit-hooks (undocumented?) in /etc like so:
#!/bin/sh
if [ ! -z "$new_ip_address" ]; then
IP=`ifconfig WAN | grep 'inet' | grep -v 'inet6' | cut -f 2 -d ' '`
if [ ! -z "$IP" ]; then
echo "$IPwan.local.domain wan" >> /etc/hosts
fi
fi
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.17/1847 - Release Date: 2008-12-13 16:56
Sorry I mean dhclient-exit-hooks not dhcp-exit-hooks
/R
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Canonical way for DHCP->IP->/etc/hosts
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 02:00:12PM +0100, Roger Olofsson wrote: > Dear mailing list, > > I am sorry if this question has been asked over and over again - however > the htdig search interface for the lists is somewhat shaky and gives > referrer errors for me. > > Pre-conditions. > Dualhomed firewalled FreeBSD7.1. One nic is LAN and the other dynamical > IP from ISP. > > Question: What is the canonical way for catching the IP address from a > DHCP assigned nic (from ISP that doesn't set hostname) and put the IP > into /etc/hosts with a hostname? > > Reason for asking > Firewall rules needs refreshing after new IP > > Possible answers: > Create dhcp-exit-hooks (undocumented?) in /etc like so: > > #!/bin/sh > > if [ ! -z "$new_ip_address" ]; then > IP=`ifconfig WAN | grep 'inet' | grep -v 'inet6' | cut -f 2 -d ' '` > if [ ! -z "$IP" ]; then > echo "$IP wan.local.domain wan" >> /etc/hosts > > > > fi > fi > Hello. I think pf can handle with dhcp updates on interfaces pretty well. If only I get your question right. -- Best regards, Jeff () X-mas ribbon campaign /\ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Canonical way for DHCP->IP->/etc/hosts
Dear mailing list, I am sorry if this question has been asked over and over again - however the htdig search interface for the lists is somewhat shaky and gives referrer errors for me. Pre-conditions. Dualhomed firewalled FreeBSD7.1. One nic is LAN and the other dynamical IP from ISP. Question: What is the canonical way for catching the IP address from a DHCP assigned nic (from ISP that doesn't set hostname) and put the IP into /etc/hosts with a hostname? Reason for asking Firewall rules needs refreshing after new IP Possible answers: Create dhcp-exit-hooks (undocumented?) in /etc like so: #!/bin/sh if [ ! -z "$new_ip_address" ]; then IP=`ifconfig WAN | grep 'inet' | grep -v 'inet6' | cut -f 2 -d ' '` if [ ! -z "$IP" ]; then echo "$IP wan.local.domain wan" >> /etc/hosts fi fi ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: /etc/hosts not working
> `ping google.com' actually pings 127.0.0.1 but `host google' returns > the actual IP addresses for google. ping will resolve the name using the mecanism defined in /etc/nsswitch.conf, usually: hosts: files dns nis try first /etc/hosts, then DNS, then NIS But host(1) command is designed to query DNS exclusively. Hence the different recults. Olivier ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: /etc/hosts not working
David Naylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am trying to redirect a URL request to a different address but it > appears that /etc/hosts is not doing the job. Example: > > 127.0.0.1 google.com > > The way I understand it is that by typing google.com in a web browser > it should result in the local page being displayed. It instead goes > to the proper Google page. Which browser? Works fine here; might be a browser cache issue. > `ping google.com' actually pings 127.0.0.1 but `host google' returns > the actual IP addresses for google. This means both ping and host are working as designed. -- Sahil Tandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: /etc/hosts not working
Hello David: _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Naylor Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 1:49 PM To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: /etc/hosts not working * PGP Signed: 09/11/08 at 13:49:05 Hi, I am trying to redirect a URL request to a different address but it appears that /etc/hosts is not doing the job. Example: 127.0.0.1 google.com The way I understand it is that by typing google.com in a web browser it should result in the local page being displayed. It instead goes to the proper Google page. `ping google.com' actually pings 127.0.0.1 but `host google' returns the actual IP addresses for google. /etc/nsswitch.conf has `hosts: files dns' and host.conf has `hosts\n dns' Any idea why the system calls are not honouring /etc/hosts? Regards David * David Naylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * 0xFF6916B2 man host shows that the host utility is specifically for DNS-resolved lookups and looks at /etc/resolv.conf, not /etc/hosts Regards, Mike PGP.sig Description: PGP signature
Re: /etc/hosts not working
David Naylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I am trying to redirect a URL request to a different address but it appears > that /etc/hosts is not doing the job. Example: > > 127.0.0.1 google.com > > The way I understand it is that by typing google.com in a web browser it > should result in the local page being displayed. It instead goes to the > proper Google page. > > `ping google.com' actually pings 127.0.0.1 but `host google' returns the > actual IP addresses for google. Sounds like your browser is using a proxy server which is doing the name resolution for you. > /etc/nsswitch.conf has `hosts: files dns' and host.conf has `hosts\n dns' > > Any idea why the system calls are not honouring /etc/hosts? Since ping works, I'm sure that they are. -- Lowell Gilbert, embedded/networking software engineer, Boston area http://be-well.ilk.org/~lowell/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
/etc/hosts not working
Hi, I am trying to redirect a URL request to a different address but it appears that /etc/hosts is not doing the job. Example: 127.0.0.1 google.com The way I understand it is that by typing google.com in a web browser it should result in the local page being displayed. It instead goes to the proper Google page. `ping google.com' actually pings 127.0.0.1 but `host google' returns the actual IP addresses for google. /etc/nsswitch.conf has `hosts: files dns' and host.conf has `hosts\n dns' Any idea why the system calls are not honouring /etc/hosts? Regards David signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: /etc/hosts
Derek Ragona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What error are you getting from ping? I think the OP said he did not have a problem with ping. -- Sahil Tandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: /etc/hosts
At 08:53 PM 9/1/2008, Tom Marchand wrote: I am trying to resolve the 192.168.2.3 address. ::1 localhost.local localhost 127.0.0.1 localhost.local localhost 72.15.233.132 host.local host 72.15.233.132 host.local. 192.168.2.3 test On Sep 1, 2008, at 8:10 PM, Glenn Sieb wrote: Tom Marchand said the following on 9/1/08 7:52 PM: Hi, I've got an issue where hosts defined in my /etc/hosts are not being resolved. I've looked at resolv.conf, host.conf and nsswitch.conf and everything looks ok. It's my understanding that with the below configurations, /etc/hosts should be used first then DNS. Correct? This is a 6.1 system. Can we see your /etc/hosts file? Best, --Glenn What error are you getting from ping? Is it not able to ping the ip 192.168.2.3? Or is the ping unable to route to that network and host? -Derek -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: /etc/hosts
Tom Marchand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Everything is set correctly in rc.conf. What I have noticed is that > ping can resolve hosts from /etc/hosts. If ping works then everything is fine in /etc/hosts. You haven't told us what program you're using to resolve the 'test' hostname. If you're using something like dig or nslookup, then this is expected behavior; those programs are *supposed* to query the name server and do not read /etc/hosts. -- Sahil Tandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: /etc/hosts
Everything is set correctly in rc.conf. What I have noticed is that ping can resolve hosts from /etc/hosts. I should mention that this machine has been running for 1.5 years and it wasn't until today that I've needed to add machines to /etc/hosts. On Sep 1, 2008, at 8:22 PM, Derek Ragona wrote: Check your /etc/rc.conf and look that the correct IP and hostname are set in there. You may have a typo. -Derek -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED] " ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: /etc/hosts
I am trying to resolve the 192.168.2.3 address. ::1 localhost.local localhost 127.0.0.1 localhost.local localhost 72.15.233.132 host.local host 72.15.233.132 host.local. 192.168.2.3 test On Sep 1, 2008, at 8:10 PM, Glenn Sieb wrote: Tom Marchand said the following on 9/1/08 7:52 PM: Hi, I've got an issue where hosts defined in my /etc/hosts are not being resolved. I've looked at resolv.conf, host.conf and nsswitch.conf and everything looks ok. It's my understanding that with the below configurations, /etc/hosts should be used first then DNS. Correct? This is a 6.1 system. Can we see your /etc/hosts file? Best, --Glenn ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: /etc/hosts
At 06:52 PM 9/1/2008, Tom Marchand wrote: Hi, I've got an issue where hosts defined in my /etc/hosts are not being resolved. I've looked at resolv.conf, host.conf and nsswitch.conf and everything looks ok. It's my understanding that with the below configurations, /etc/hosts should be used first then DNS. Correct? This is a 6.1 system. host# cat resolv.conf local domain nameserver x.x.x.x cat host.conf # Auto-generated from nsswitch.conf, do not edit hosts dns host# cat nsswitch.conf group: compat group_compat: nis hosts: files dns networks: files passwd: compat passwd_compat: nis shells: files Check your /etc/rc.conf and look that the correct IP and hostname are set in there. You may have a typo. -Derek -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: /etc/hosts
Tom Marchand said the following on 9/1/08 7:52 PM: > Hi, > > I've got an issue where hosts defined in my /etc/hosts are not being > resolved. I've looked at resolv.conf, host.conf and nsswitch.conf and > everything looks ok. It's my understanding that with the below > configurations, /etc/hosts should be used first then DNS. Correct? > This is a 6.1 system. > Can we see your /etc/hosts file? Best, --Glenn ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
/etc/hosts
Hi, I've got an issue where hosts defined in my /etc/hosts are not being resolved. I've looked at resolv.conf, host.conf and nsswitch.conf and everything looks ok. It's my understanding that with the below configurations, /etc/hosts should be used first then DNS. Correct? This is a 6.1 system. host# cat resolv.conf local domain nameserver x.x.x.x cat host.conf # Auto-generated from nsswitch.conf, do not edit hosts dns host# cat nsswitch.conf group: compat group_compat: nis hosts: files dns networks: files passwd: compat passwd_compat: nis shells: files ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: performance impact of large /etc/hosts files
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 23:49:53 -0800 (PST) RSean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi guys, > > Just curious if anyone has tried regular expressions to handle ads and > banners. That's what adzap and similar squid filters do. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: performance impact of large /etc/hosts files
Hi guys, Just curious if anyone has tried regular expressions to handle ads and banners. We have a small network of about 10 users. We use SafeSquid as proxy and content filter. It supports the use of regex for defining rules. The URL Filter section has 2 default rules for blocking ads and banners - Hosts: (^ad(|s|v|server)\.|adtag\.|targetsearches.com|webconnect.net|imgis.com|atwola.com|fastclick.net|abz.com|tribalfusion.com|advertising.com|atdmt.com|sp inbox\.(com|net)|linkexchange.com|hitbox.com|doubleclick.net|valueclick.com|click2net.com|mediaplex.com|247media.com|clickagents.com|adbutler.com|qkim g.net|realmedia.com|us.a1.yimg.com|clickheretofind.com|images.cybereps.com|adbureau.net|sfads.osdn.com|adflow.com|adprofs.com|zedo.com|digitalmedianet .com|ad-flow.com|/adsync/|adtech.de|netdirect.nl|rcm-images.amazon.com|pamedia.com|msads.net|valuead.com|smartadserver.com|thisbanner.com|aaddzz.com|s cripps.com|ru4.com|adtrix.net|falkag.net) File: (/adimages/|/banner(|s)/|/ad(|s|v|(|_)banner(|s))/|/adx/|/sponsors/|/advert(ising|s|)/|/adcycle/|/track/|/promo/|/adspace/|/admentor/|/image\.ng/|/ajr otator/|/adview.php|/clickthru|/affiliates|banmat(\.cgi|.\.cgi)|/adproof/|/bannerfarm/|/BannerAds/|/banner_|sponsorid|/servfu.pl|/RealMedia/|/adsync/| _ad_|/adceptdelivery.cgi) I am not a very technical person, but the first rule, I think, is a regex that defines hosts that serve ads; while the second rule is a regex for words that the file part of a url may contain. These rules very efficiently block ads and banners at the gateway, saving b/w and improving surfing experience. Just thought I should mention this. Cheers! -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/performance-impact-of-large--etc-hosts-files-tp14267018p14493715.html Sent from the freebsd-questions mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: performance impact of large /etc/hosts files
Am Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2007 06:52:41 schrieb Gary Kline: > well, thi sounded great until I read "squid". Isn't that > something to do with FBSD and Windows? If not, how hard is squid > to install; what does it do? You're probably thinking of samba, which is an implementation of the SMB protocol (server-side) for *nix-systems. The operating system using SMB as client is most probably Windows in case you set up a samba server. squid is an HTTP-proxy. Something completely different. And setting it up (at least with a default configuration, which you'll have to adapt) is simply installing the port and starting it. -- Heiko Wundram Product & Application Development ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: performance impact of large /etc/hosts files
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 09:10:15PM +, RW wrote: > On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:05:53 -0700 (MST) > Warren Block <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > It may be possible to use an Adblock "subscription" to update a squid > > setup. That would provide the best of both. > > There's no need to do that, you can use a script like adzapper with > squid. It's in ports (www/adzap), so you can pickup a new default > rule file with port updates. And you can define additional rules and > exceptions. The only thing I had to set was some exceptions for sites, > I don't mind seeing adds for. > > There's at least one other add blocking squid redirector in ports. well, thi sounded great until I read "squid". Isn't that something to do with FBSD and Windows? If not, how hard is squid to install; what does it do? > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" -- Gary Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.thought.org Public Service Unix http://jottings.thought.org http://transfinite.thought.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: performance impact of large /etc/hosts files
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:05:53 -0700 (MST) Warren Block <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It may be possible to use an Adblock "subscription" to update a squid > setup. That would provide the best of both. There's no need to do that, you can use a script like adzapper with squid. It's in ports (www/adzap), so you can pickup a new default rule file with port updates. And you can define additional rules and exceptions. The only thing I had to set was some exceptions for sites, I don't mind seeing adds for. There's at least one other add blocking squid redirector in ports. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: performance impact of large /etc/hosts files
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Alex Zbyslaw wrote: Warren Block wrote: Like AdblockPlus. According to it's web pages "*Note*: It is recommended to use at least Firefox 2.0, Thunderbird 2.0, SeaMonkey 1.1 or Songbird 0.2. Older versions receive less testing and support for them is likely to be dropped in a few months." The other schemes mentioned in this thread (hosts, DNS, squid) work with any and every web browser. The OP already said he doesn't use Firefox. Guess I missed that. Having tried 127.0.0.1 entries in /etc/hosts and squid in an company setting, Adblock is so much easier that I don't want to think about going back. It may be possible to use an Adblock "subscription" to update a squid setup. That would provide the best of both. -Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota USA ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: performance impact of large /etc/hosts files
Hi, Warren Block wrote: On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Erich Dollansky wrote: If you still see unwanted content, just add a line and it will be gone during your next visit. Like AdBlockPlus, only more work. The beauty is, Internet feels still faster then before. Like AdblockPlus. It has one advantage over all those ad removal tools. It filters what I do not like. It has nothing to do with censorship, it just gets rid of all the crap hanging around on every corner of a web page trying to sell you anti virus software or larger dicks. Like AdblockPlus. What is the one advantage? There are some differences: AdblockPlus removes the ads and lets the but it is limited to these browsers: Minimal requirements: Firefox 1.5, Thunderbird 1.5, SeaMonkey 1.0, Flock 0.5, Songbird 0.2. Erich ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: performance impact of large /etc/hosts files
Warren Block wrote: On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Erich Dollansky wrote: If you still see unwanted content, just add a line and it will be gone during your next visit. Like AdBlockPlus, only more work. The beauty is, Internet feels still faster then before. Like AdblockPlus. It has one advantage over all those ad removal tools. It filters what I do not like. It has nothing to do with censorship, it just gets rid of all the crap hanging around on every corner of a web page trying to sell you anti virus software or larger dicks. Like AdblockPlus. What is the one advantage? There are some differences: AdblockPlus removes the ads and lets the browser use the space, rather than showing broken pages. And you can customize blocked sites differently for different users. And you can easily disable it. And it doesn't impact the whole system, just the browser. And you can block on regexes, so you don't need hundreds of entries to block the big ad farms. According to it's web pages "*Note*: It is recommended to use at least Firefox 2.0, Thunderbird 2.0, SeaMonkey 1.1 or Songbird 0.2. Older versions receive less testing and support for them is likely to be dropped in a few months." The other schemes mentioned in this thread (hosts, DNS, squid) work with any and every web browser. The OP already said he doesn't use Firefox. I myself still use Mozilla, Opera, and (heaven help me) IE, none of which are on the list. As I've already mentioned, I see no broken pages because I don't break the layout (usually), and the post about squid talked about clear gifs as replacements which again would not break anything. AdblockPlus is a valid alternative *if you are just a Firefox user*, but for everyone else, some other solution is required. --Alex ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: performance impact of large /etc/hosts files
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Erich Dollansky wrote: If you still see unwanted content, just add a line and it will be gone during your next visit. Like AdBlockPlus, only more work. The beauty is, Internet feels still faster then before. Like AdblockPlus. It has one advantage over all those ad removal tools. It filters what I do not like. It has nothing to do with censorship, it just gets rid of all the crap hanging around on every corner of a web page trying to sell you anti virus software or larger dicks. Like AdblockPlus. What is the one advantage? There are some differences: AdblockPlus removes the ads and lets the browser use the space, rather than showing broken pages. And you can customize blocked sites differently for different users. And you can easily disable it. And it doesn't impact the whole system, just the browser. And you can block on regexes, so you don't need hundreds of entries to block the big ad farms. -Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota USA ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: performance impact of large /etc/hosts files
RW wrote: On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:31:08 + Alex Zbyslaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I have zero experience of squid beyond reading about it, but it has always sounded like a major resource hog. It depends how you use it. I think you can probably get it down to about 15 MB, if you eliminate memory caching and use a modest disk cache. Squid needs to store per object metadata in memory, about 10-20MB per GB of disk cache, and that's what leads to very large memory use. Thanks for the info. That doesn't seem too bad in relation to a small network, but I can see why a large network might want to dedicate a separate host. --Alex ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: performance impact of large /etc/hosts files
Heiko Wundram (Beenic) wrote: Basically, why I personally rather like the squid (i.e., proxy-based) approach to ad-blocking is the fact that if you try to do this at a lower level than the HTTP-level, there's bound to be pages that display wrong/broken, simply because not being able to fetch images (because they supposedly come from "localhost") means that most browsers are not going to display the space reserved to it and will mess up the page layout, even when specifying width= _and_ height= in an img-tag (when only specifying one of the attributes or none, the page layout will be broken anyway). Opera is my favourite candidate for messing up page layouts in this case. On another note, Opera has an (IMHO) huge timeout for failed (i.e., refused, not timed out) connections to the target host, and if many images refer to localhost through some DNS or hosts magic, this is going to majorly slow down page display/buildup on non-css based layouts, which sadly there still are enough out there (and for some of which the ad-slots are an integral part of the page layout, such as some german news sites). I'm certainly convinced that this is a viable solution to the ad problem, but it still seems *to me* far more work than dumping a bunch of hostnames in /etc/hosts. I have, myself, had little or no trouble with page layouts messing up, but I maybe haven't used the solution on a large enough scale to notice. But if you really want to configure the heck out of ads then squid would seem to have much more flexibility, at the cost of greater maintenance. As for the timeouts issue, you are assuming that the host names are redirected to an IP address where nothing is listening. I redirect to a local IP alias and do have an apache server listening which serves up a default page with a blue background. I want to *see* the ad being blocked as it gives me a sense of smug satisfaction :-) I'm sure you could do something more sophisticated, but this has worked well enough for me with virtually no maintenance. I certainly get no noticeable delays with opera when I use it. Best, --Alex PS The /etc/hosts solution must be described plenty of places that are google-able since I found it through none of the resources mentioned in this discussion. I wish I could say I'd thought of it for myself, but like so many good ideas I just borrowed it shamelessly from somewhere else. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: performance impact of large /etc/hosts files
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:31:08 + Alex Zbyslaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have zero experience of squid beyond reading about it, but it has > always sounded like a major resource hog. It depends how you use it. I think you can probably get it down to about 15 MB, if you eliminate memory caching and use a modest disk cache. Squid needs to store per object metadata in memory, about 10-20MB per GB of disk cache, and that's what leads to very large memory use. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: performance impact of large /etc/hosts files
Am Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2007 13:38:59 schrieben Sie: > I want to do precisely the opposite. It should affect only a single > machine. It would even be better if it would affect only a single > account on that machine. Affecting only a single machine/a single account has nothing to do with the fact that you manage and implement it centrally; the two concepts are orthogonal. Basically, this should come around to giving squid (from what I'd do in your case) different rule sets based on authentication to the proxy and/or originating IP in your internal network, which leads to different behaviour depending on the accessing person/program. Basically, why I personally rather like the squid (i.e., proxy-based) approach to ad-blocking is the fact that if you try to do this at a lower level than the HTTP-level, there's bound to be pages that display wrong/broken, simply because not being able to fetch images (because they supposedly come from "localhost") means that most browsers are not going to display the space reserved to it and will mess up the page layout, even when specifying width= _and_ height= in an img-tag (when only specifying one of the attributes or none, the page layout will be broken anyway). Opera is my favourite candidate for messing up page layouts in this case. On another note, Opera has an (IMHO) huge timeout for failed (i.e., refused, not timed out) connections to the target host, and if many images refer to localhost through some DNS or hosts magic, this is going to majorly slow down page display/buildup on non-css based layouts, which sadly there still are enough out there (and for some of which the ad-slots are an integral part of the page layout, such as some german news sites). If you do the blocking at the topmost level (i.e., through squid or some other HTTP proxy), the proxy can generate an empty/transparent image with the appropriate proportions to fill the now void space, which the extension I referenced earlier will do automatically for you. This doesn't stop the connection to the ad host from happening (i.e., isn't a traffic saver, but who cares about that nowadays I'd say), but it does stop the end-user from seeing the ad (and/or its content). It even allows you more fine-grained control over which URLs to block, so that you don't have to filter by host specifically, but might also filter by directory (which is required at some sites, as the ads/unwanted content comes from the same host as the actual content you're interested in). It's a matter of choice how much duress you want the end-user to endure, basically, seeing that user-based discrimination on a proxy also requires authentication (unless you implement packet redirects on the end-user machines to different ports of the firewall depending on the user originating the outgoing packet, but this is just as bad to keep synchronized in the end). But, anyway, it would be my way to go to achieve what you're trying to do efficiently. Just my 5 (Euro)-cents. -- Heiko Wundram Product & Application Development ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: performance impact of large /etc/hosts files
On Wednesday 12 December 2007 14:01:14 Alex Zbyslaw wrote: > but I'm going to spend *forever* before I get all those IP addresses > from a round-robin DNS entry to put into some ipfw table, No, it's going to take something like 5 minutes. At least for a 1420 lines hosts file. > and if any of > those addresses also hosts the main site, I end up blocking that too. Yes, but I doubt there is any other service on these web servers. > > I don't see how a firewall is appropriate for this (hosts.allow, > likewise). The point of the exercise is to never even contact the ad > host. The point of the exercise is not that apparent to everybody. > If I've misunderstood something about your approach, please enlighten > me. You misunderstood something, just because you and some people do it, does is it make it the legitimate usage of /etc/hosts? That's not the apparent usage of /etc/hosts to everyone. I said I need more info, and I tried to guess what he does. Please read the whole thread before trying to be that didactic! Cheers, Nikos ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: performance impact of large /etc/hosts files
Heiko Wundram (Beenic) wrote: Am Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2007 13:01:14 schrieb Alex Zbyslaw: I don't see how a firewall is appropriate for this (hosts.allow, likewise). The point of the exercise is to never even contact the ad host. Transparent proxy with squid on the firewall? There's even plugins to manage exactly this kind of ad-blocking with squid; although I don't currently know the extension's name. This is pretty much going to be your only option to do this in a centralized fashion. Squid may well be an alternative solution, but it's not, imho, a firewall solution as Nikos was proposing. I have zero experience of squid beyond reading about it, but it has always sounded like a major resource hog. Perhaps just running one plugin to do just this would be OK? The advantage of /etc/hosts is simplicity. For a small home network of BSD machines it's pretty trivial to propagate updates. Not even *that* hard to copy the file to a couple windows machines. Beyond that, the updates could get pretty tedious. For a network-wide, multi-OS solution I would still look at DNS just because it's more lightweight than squid. Which is not to say that someone else shouldn't reach an alternate conclusion :-) Always good to know what the alternatives are! Best, --Alex ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: performance impact of large /etc/hosts files
Am Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2007 13:01:14 schrieb Alex Zbyslaw: > > I don't see how a firewall is appropriate for this (hosts.allow, > likewise). The point of the exercise is to never even contact the ad host. Transparent proxy with squid on the firewall? There's even plugins to manage exactly this kind of ad-blocking with squid; although I don't currently know the extension's name. This is pretty much going to be your only option to do this in a centralized fashion. -- Heiko Wundram Product & Application Development ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: performance impact of large /etc/hosts files
Erich Dollansky wrote: Alex Zbyslaw wrote: Erich Dollansky wrote: Assuming I've understood your initial post correctly, then I do the same, redirecting some dozen ad sites to a local web server. With a this is how I started. Then friends did the same. We exchanged the files. We added hosts files from the Internet. dozen or so aliases I've never noticed any difference in performance, but I suspect you have rather more than that :-) I could never quite be I also do not notice a difference. Especially news sites with all the ads are even faster as there is no waiting for the ads. I'm pretty sure you could also do the same with a local DNS server, if This is what I am thinking of since some time but I never did. It would have the additional advantage of faster name resolution. Having a DNS on every machine seems like a real overkill to me. Why would you have DNS on every machine? I don't know what your setup is like, but any separate network (like your home, your office) would only need one(*) DNS server for the entire network. Of course, everyone then gets their ads blocked, not just you :-) No way to make it per-user that I can think of. But, you could run 1 DNS and only point hosts which wished to participate in the ad blocking at that DNS server and let others do their resolution however they normally do it (ISP DNS, company DNS). There's no clean solutions to getting different lookups per-user that I The clen solution is hosts. It's not per-user, which was what you originally asked. Unclean solutions might include something like making the hosts file This is something I would like to avoid. If you want different name resolution per user, then I see little alternative to something like this. I'm not even sure it's possible, to be honest, but then name resolution was never expected to be per user :-( --Alex Yes, you should probably have a second, slave DNS if your network is more than a couple of hosts. Setting up a DNS is not actually that hard. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: performance impact of large /etc/hosts files
Nikos Vassiliadis wrote: On Wednesday 12 December 2007 04:06:01 Erich Dollansky wrote: There's no clean solutions to getting different lookups per-user that I The clen solution is hosts. But hosts is operating system-wide. Both ipfw and pf support tables, which is what you want, large sets or unrelated (addresses|networks). Both of them support UID matching as a target (caution: this feature is not mpsafe on FreeBSD-6). I don't understand how you think any firewall would do this. Firewalls will block based on IP addresses, whereas what I do (pointing numerous ad sites at a local apache vhost) works based on names. I have no clue if the ad sites share IP addresses with anything else, nor do I care; nor do I care if some ad site has 50 different IP addresses because I never resolve the real IP. To take a random, made up example: ads.useful.site = 10.1.1.1 www.useful.site = 10.1.1.1 Using hosts (or DNS) I can make ads.useful.site instead = 192.168.1.1 or ads.useful.site = 101.1.1 -> 10.1.1.255 but I'm going to spend *forever* before I get all those IP addresses from a round-robin DNS entry to put into some ipfw table, and if any of those addresses also hosts the main site, I end up blocking that too. I don't see how a firewall is appropriate for this (hosts.allow, likewise). The point of the exercise is to never even contact the ad host. If I've misunderstood something about your approach, please enlighten me. --Alex ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: performance impact of large /etc/hosts files
On Wednesday 12 December 2007 10:05:28 Erich Dollansky wrote: > The beauty is, Internet feels still faster then before. > > It has one advantage over all those ad removal tools. It filters what I > do not like. It has nothing to do with censorship, it just gets rid of > all the crap hanging around on every corner of a web page trying to sell > you anti virus software or larger dicks. I'll give it a try. It may be helpful for my lossy-56Kbps-modem internet-experience at home! Nikos ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: performance impact of large /etc/hosts files
Hi, Nikos Vassiliadis wrote: On Wednesday 12 December 2007 04:06:01 Erich Dollansky wrote: There's no clean solutions to getting different lookups per-user that Both ipfw and pf support tables, which is what you I would like to avoid having a fire wall running on each machine. Out of curiosity, how big your hosts file is? It is above 600KB since I included also the information I found on sites like this: http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm Since I joined my private file with this one http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.txt it grew to the mentioned 600KB from below 10KB. If you still see unwanted content, just add a line and it will be gone during your next visit. The beauty is, Internet feels still faster then before. It has one advantage over all those ad removal tools. It filters what I do not like. It has nothing to do with censorship, it just gets rid of all the crap hanging around on every corner of a web page trying to sell you anti virus software or larger dicks. Erich ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: performance impact of large /etc/hosts files
On Wednesday 12 December 2007 04:06:01 Erich Dollansky wrote: > > There's no clean solutions to getting different lookups per-user that > > I > > The clen solution is hosts. But hosts is operating system-wide. Both ipfw and pf support tables, which is what you want, large sets or unrelated (addresses|networks). Both of them support UID matching as a target (caution: this feature is not mpsafe on FreeBSD-6). Out of curiosity, how big your hosts file is? Can you share it with the rest of us? Perhaps upload it somewhere, so we can try your approach? Nikos ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: performance impact of large /etc/hosts files
Hi, Alex Zbyslaw wrote: Erich Dollansky wrote: Assuming I've understood your initial post correctly, then I do the same, redirecting some dozen ad sites to a local web server. With a this is how I started. Then friends did the same. We exchanged the files. We added hosts files from the Internet. dozen or so aliases I've never noticed any difference in performance, but I suspect you have rather more than that :-) I could never quite be I also do not notice a difference. Especially news sites with all the ads are even faster as there is no waiting for the ads. I'm pretty sure you could also do the same with a local DNS server, if This is what I am thinking of since some time but I never did. It would have the additional advantage of faster name resolution. Having a DNS on every machine seems like a real overkill to me. There's no clean solutions to getting different lookups per-user that I The clen solution is hosts. Unclean solutions might include something like making the hosts file This is something I would like to avoid. Erich ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: performance impact of large /etc/hosts files
Erich Dollansky wrote: But new sites have new stuff I would like to be filtered out. To make these experiences as rare as possible, I collect from friends and the Internet hosts files to filter as much as possible. This resulted in a pretty large file meanwhile. But the Internet looks much more usable for me now. Assuming I've understood your initial post correctly, then I do the same, redirecting some dozen ad sites to a local web server. With a dozen or so aliases I've never noticed any difference in performance, but I suspect you have rather more than that :-) I could never quite be bothered to maintain the list once I'd filtered ads from the sites I use most often. I think the answer to your original question is going to be "look at the source code". If your hosts file is really that large then I suspect it will be having a performance effect and only you can judge if it's significant or not. Large hosts files are not the future, so performance improvements in the future are unlikely, I would say. I'm pretty sure you could also do the same with a local DNS server, if you wanted to "abuse" it in this way, and that would *probably* be faster since the code would expect to deal with large lists of hosts. Been a while since I did anything like that, though, and never on the scale you seem to be describing. There's no clean solutions to getting different lookups per-user that I am aware of, but unless your host is also performing some service that involves a lot of name resolution then why care? (And if it is, you shouldn't be using it as a general web browser :-)) Unclean solutions might include something like making the hosts file point to some automounted directory which changed per user, but you'd have to be sure that you saw a valid hosts file at boot time. Fiddling with symlinks in rc scripts could do that, I'm sure. --Alex ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: performance impact of large /etc/hosts files
Hi, Warren Block wrote: On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Erich Dollansky wrote: This is really what I want. Just avoiding the traffic, the time and the optical disturbance caused by all those sites. I would even prefer a method as simple as hosts but linked even to my user account. http://adblockplus.org/en/ works fine on Firefox. Easier to use and more effective than 127.0.0.1 entries in /etc/hosts. I do not even use Firefox. hosts has the clear limit that stuff coming from the same site as the text I want to read is still shown. In general, it works fine. But new sites have new stuff I would like to be filtered out. To make these experiences as rare as possible, I collect from friends and the Internet hosts files to filter as much as possible. This resulted in a pretty large file meanwhile. But the Internet looks much more usable for me now. Erich ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: performance impact of large /etc/hosts files
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Erich Dollansky wrote: This is really what I want. Just avoiding the traffic, the time and the optical disturbance caused by all those sites. I would even prefer a method as simple as hosts but linked even to my user account. http://adblockplus.org/en/ works fine on Firefox. Easier to use and more effective than 127.0.0.1 entries in /etc/hosts. -Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota USA ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: performance impact of large /etc/hosts files
And it just occured to me that you really mean /etc/hosts.allow and not /etc/hosts... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: performance impact of large /etc/hosts files
Hi, Nikos Vassiliadis wrote: On Tuesday 11 December 2007 05:18:40 Erich Dollansky wrote: I use hosts for filtering all unwanted content on my personal machine. That's not apparent. What are your filtering? all the sites I personally do not want to see. and how do your filter using /etc/hosts? 127.0.0.1 BadHost.com I recall that before DNS(that's a long time ago) the mapping Yes, this was normal, a long time ago. The only "filtering" I can imagine of, is using something like 127.0.0.1 badhosts.com Yes. But all you get is misinforming *your* resolver that Yes, this is what I want. Just the machine I am working on. No other machine should get any impact from this. badhosts.com is on 127.0.0.1, that is, *you* cannot connect to badhosts.com. Yes, this is what I want. badhosts.com can connect to your machine just fine. Yes, if they would come through to it. And I doubt that's what you want. This is really what I want. Just avoiding the traffic, the time and the optical disturbance caused by all those sites. I would even prefer a method as simple as hosts but linked even to my user account. Erich ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: performance impact of large /etc/hosts files
On Tuesday 11 December 2007 05:18:40 Erich Dollansky wrote: > Hi, > > I wonder what the performance impact of the entries in /etc/hosts really > is. > > What is your experience? > > Google tells me a lot of hosts running FreeBSD but I could not find > anything regarding the hosts file itself. > > I use hosts for filtering all unwanted content on my personal machine. That's not apparent. What are your filtering? and how do your filter using /etc/hosts? From "man hosts": DESCRIPTION The hosts file contains information regarding the known hosts on the net- work. It can be used in conjunction with DNS, and the NIS maps `hosts.byaddr' and `hosts.byname', as controlled by nsswitch.conf(5). For example, my computer's name is iris.teledomenet.gr. This is not a fully qualified hostname. It's not in the Domain Name System. So, I have to enter this information manually to my /etc/hosts, so my OS will know that iris.teledomenet.gr is the local host. Example /etc/hosts: 192.168.1.71 iris iris.teledomenet.gr I recall that before DNS(that's a long time ago) the mapping between IP addresses and hostnames was achieved using /etc/hosts. And one could get a hosts file from a well known place(IANA?) The only "filtering" I can imagine of, is using something like 127.0.0.1 badhosts.com But all you get is misinforming *your* resolver that badhosts.com is on 127.0.0.1, that is, *you* cannot connect to badhosts.com. badhosts.com can connect to your machine just fine. And I doubt that's what you want. Please, clarify a bit. Nikos ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
performance impact of large /etc/hosts files
Hi, I wonder what the performance impact of the entries in /etc/hosts really is. What is your experience? Google tells me a lot of hosts running FreeBSD but I could not find anything regarding the hosts file itself. I use hosts for filtering all unwanted content on my personal machine. I run currently 6.2. Thanks! Erich ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: a small problem with /etc/hosts in FreeBSD 6.2
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:33:24 + Pollywog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > in my hosts file, I have a line that looks like this: > > ::1localhost localhost.mydomain.com > > > Is this line for IPv6 or is there some other reason for its > presence? It causes occasional problems, so I commented it out and I > kept a similar line that points to 127.0.0.1 > ::1 is the IPv6 address for localhost IPv6 address often contain a long run of zeroes, so :: an abbreviation for this. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: a small problem with /etc/hosts in FreeBSD 6.2
On Wednesday 12 September 2007 16:10:54 Derek Ragona wrote: > > Are you running ipv6? If not just comment that line out. I am not running ipv6 and I thought I did not need that line, so I have commented it out. thanks ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: a small problem with /etc/hosts in FreeBSD 6.2
At 11:08 AM 9/12/2007, Pollywog wrote: On Wednesday 12 September 2007 15:47:15 Wojciech Puchar wrote: > > in my hosts file, I have a line that looks like this: > > ::1localhost localhost.mydomain.com > > > > Is this line for IPv6 or is there some other reason for its presence? It > > causes occasional problems, so I commented it out and I kept a similar > > line that points to 127.0.0.1 > > there should be 2 lines > > ::1 localhost localhost.my.domain > > 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.my.domain > Yes, there are, but it is the first line that causes the error. I suppose I could transpose them rather than comment out the first line. I had not thought to try that. Are you running ipv6? If not just comment that line out. -Derek -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: a small problem with /etc/hosts in FreeBSD 6.2
On Wednesday 12 September 2007 15:47:15 Wojciech Puchar wrote: > > in my hosts file, I have a line that looks like this: > > ::1localhost localhost.mydomain.com > > > > Is this line for IPv6 or is there some other reason for its presence? It > > causes occasional problems, so I commented it out and I kept a similar > > line that points to 127.0.0.1 > > there should be 2 lines > > ::1 localhost localhost.my.domain > > 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.my.domain > Yes, there are, but it is the first line that causes the error. I suppose I could transpose them rather than comment out the first line. I had not thought to try that. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: a small problem with /etc/hosts in FreeBSD 6.2
in my hosts file, I have a line that looks like this: ::1localhost localhost.mydomain.com Is this line for IPv6 or is there some other reason for its presence? It causes occasional problems, so I commented it out and I kept a similar line that points to 127.0.0.1 there should be 2 lines ::1 localhost localhost.my.domain 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.my.domain An example of the problems it sometimes causes is that if I telnet to localhost at port 25 I get this: Trying ::1... telnet: connect to address ::1: Connection refused ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
a small problem with /etc/hosts in FreeBSD 6.2
in my hosts file, I have a line that looks like this: ::1localhost localhost.mydomain.com Is this line for IPv6 or is there some other reason for its presence? It causes occasional problems, so I commented it out and I kept a similar line that points to 127.0.0.1 An example of the problems it sometimes causes is that if I telnet to localhost at port 25 I get this: Trying ::1... telnet: connect to address ::1: Connection refused ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Question about the /etc/hosts file
At 07:54 PM 4/10/2007, RW wrote: On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 15:52:43 -0500 Derek Ragona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 03:48 PM 4/10/2007, L33T Networks wrote: > >What is the second line with 10.20.30.199, and the hostname ends in a > >period? I've never seen this in a host file previous to FBSD v.6. > > > >apollo# cat /etc/hosts > >#::1localhost.mydomain.com localhost > >127.0.0.1 localhost.mydomain.com localhost > >10.20.30.199apollo.mydomain.com apollo > >10.20.30.199apollo.mydomain.com. > > > >Is this something that's required for other IP addresses that will > >be added to the hosts file in the future? > > Names ending in a dot represent the fully qualified domain name. You > do it all on one line but it gets too long to easily see and edit. > But that doesn't explain why apollo.mydomain.com. appears as both a FQDN and a PQDN Actually it does. The partial names are shortcut aliases for that name. On this system you can do things like: ping apollo ping apollo.mydomain.com ping apollo.mydomain.com. So can any of the network services. Just makes it easier for us humans. As names are just used so us humans don't need to memorize IP addresses. -Derek -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Question about the /etc/hosts file
Preceisely ... That would indicate that the PQDN when fully qualified would appear as: apollo.mydomain.com.mydomain.com. Mydomain.com being the domain listed in the resolv.conf file On 4/10/07 5:54 PM, "RW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 15:52:43 -0500 > Derek Ragona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> At 03:48 PM 4/10/2007, L33T Networks wrote: >>> What is the second line with 10.20.30.199, and the hostname ends in a >>> period? I've never seen this in a host file previous to FBSD v.6. >>> >>> apollo# cat /etc/hosts >>> #::1localhost.mydomain.com localhost >>> 127.0.0.1 localhost.mydomain.com localhost >>> 10.20.30.199apollo.mydomain.com apollo >>> 10.20.30.199apollo.mydomain.com. >>> >>> Is this something that's required for other IP addresses that will >>> be added to the hosts file in the future? >> >> Names ending in a dot represent the fully qualified domain name. You >> do it all on one line but it gets too long to easily see and edit. >> > But that doesn't explain why apollo.mydomain.com. appears as both a > FQDN and a PQDN > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Question about the /etc/hosts file
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 15:52:43 -0500 Derek Ragona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 03:48 PM 4/10/2007, L33T Networks wrote: > >What is the second line with 10.20.30.199, and the hostname ends in a > >period? I've never seen this in a host file previous to FBSD v.6. > > > >apollo# cat /etc/hosts > >#::1localhost.mydomain.com localhost > >127.0.0.1 localhost.mydomain.com localhost > >10.20.30.199apollo.mydomain.com apollo > >10.20.30.199apollo.mydomain.com. > > > >Is this something that's required for other IP addresses that will > >be added to the hosts file in the future? > > Names ending in a dot represent the fully qualified domain name. You > do it all on one line but it gets too long to easily see and edit. > But that doesn't explain why apollo.mydomain.com. appears as both a FQDN and a PQDN ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Question about the /etc/hosts file
Thats a FQDN (fully qualified domain name) L33T Networks wrote: What is the second line with 10.20.30.199, and the hostname ends in a period? I've never seen this in a host file previous to FBSD v.6. apollo# cat /etc/hosts #::1localhost.mydomain.com localhost 127.0.0.1 localhost.mydomain.com localhost 10.20.30.199apollo.mydomain.com apollo 10.20.30.199apollo.mydomain.com. Is this something that's required for other IP addresses that will be added to the hosts file in the future? Thanks in advance! Chris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Question about the /etc/hosts file
At 03:48 PM 4/10/2007, L33T Networks wrote: What is the second line with 10.20.30.199, and the hostname ends in a period? I've never seen this in a host file previous to FBSD v.6. apollo# cat /etc/hosts #::1localhost.mydomain.com localhost 127.0.0.1 localhost.mydomain.com localhost 10.20.30.199apollo.mydomain.com apollo 10.20.30.199apollo.mydomain.com. Is this something that's required for other IP addresses that will be added to the hosts file in the future? Names ending in a dot represent the fully qualified domain name. You do it all on one line but it gets too long to easily see and edit. -Derek -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Question about the /etc/hosts file
What is the second line with 10.20.30.199, and the hostname ends in a period? I've never seen this in a host file previous to FBSD v.6. apollo# cat /etc/hosts #::1localhost.mydomain.com localhost 127.0.0.1 localhost.mydomain.com localhost 10.20.30.199apollo.mydomain.com apollo 10.20.30.199apollo.mydomain.com. Is this something that's required for other IP addresses that will be added to the hosts file in the future? Thanks in advance! Chris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Confused on how to properly set /etc/hosts
On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 09:24:59AM -0400, Ro BGCT wrote: > > I am new to FreeBSD and am wondering if someone couldt tell me how to > properly set /etc/hosts. Right now it is: > > 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.my.domain > > It says to replace "my.domain" with the domain name of my machine. If > I am using this box remotely and its hostname is "web1.server.net", > would I make the change like: > > 127.0.0.1 localhost web1.server.net > > Or am I doing it wrong? You should only replace the "my.domain" part with the 2nd level domain, so it would be: 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.server.net You *may* also have an entry for web1, but it would normally contain your assigned IP address: 10.10.10.115 web1 web1.server.net But you may not want anything except localhost, depending on your DNS setup. In fact, stick with localhost only until and unless you have a reason to add more to /etc/hosts. -- Darrin Chandler| Phoenix BSD Users Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://bsd.phoenix.az.us/ http://www.stilyagin.com/ | ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Confused on how to properly set /etc/hosts
Ro BGCT wrote: > Hello, > > I am new to FreeBSD and am wondering if someone couldt tell me how to > properly set /etc/hosts. Right now it is: > > 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.my.domain > > It says to replace "my.domain" with the domain name of my machine. If > I am using this box remotely and its hostname is "web1.server.net", > would I make the change like: > > 127.0.0.1 localhost web1.server.net > > Or am I doing it wrong? The instructions mean you should edit the line to read: 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.server.net Generally if you have a fully qualified domain name eg 'web1.server.net' then 'web1' is frequently referred to as the 'host name' and 'server.net' as the 'domain name'. It's shorthand, and it's technically not correct[*] but it's commonly understood. Don't get too hung up over the /etc/hosts thing. Arguably it's equally correct to have just: 127.0.0.1 localhost Any extras on that line won't make any noticeable difference at all on most setups. Cheers, Matthew [*] In the DNS *everything* (fully qualified or not) is a domain name, whether it refers to a host, a web site, a whole network or whatever. -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate Kent, CT11 9PW signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Confused on how to properly set /etc/hosts
Hello, I am new to FreeBSD and am wondering if someone couldt tell me how to properly set /etc/hosts. Right now it is: 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.my.domain It says to replace "my.domain" with the domain name of my machine. If I am using this box remotely and its hostname is "web1.server.net", would I make the change like: 127.0.0.1 localhost web1.server.net Or am I doing it wrong? Thank you, ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: /etc/hosts isn't being read
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 12:52:11PM -0400, Robert Huff wrote: > > You may have solved one name resolution problem; have you > solved them all? > The "N second delay" problem is usually caused by something > trying to do a reverse name look-up. You either need to disable > this, or make sure reverse look-ups work. % man nsswitch.conf Make sure /etc/nsswitch.conf lists "hosts: files dns" in that order to search the /etc/hosts file before DNS. -- David Kelly N4HHE, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: /etc/hosts isn't being read
Josh Paetzel writes: > Ok...That solved my hostname resolution issues. Now the next > issue is why it takes ssh 60 seconds to give me a password > prompt. I thought that was always caused by not having name > resolution working. Any thoughts on this issue? You may have solved one name resolution problem; have you solved them all? The "N second delay" problem is usually caused by something trying to do a reverse name look-up. You either need to disable this, or make sure reverse look-ups work. Robert Huff ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: /etc/hosts isn't being read
On Thursday 13 April 2006 11:11, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > > shells: files > > > > $ host example > > Host example not found: 3(NXDOMAIN) > > "host" command always use DNS. try ping, telnet, whatever use IP > connections > > > $ host example.example.org > > Host example not found 3(NXDOMAIN) > > > > What am I doing wrong here that is keeping /etc/hosts from being > > read? Ok...That solved my hostname resolution issues. Now the next issue is why it takes ssh 60 seconds to give me a password prompt. I thought that was always caused by not having name resolution working. Any thoughts on this issue? -- Thanks, Josh Paetzel ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: /etc/hosts isn't being read
shells: files $ host example Host example not found: 3(NXDOMAIN) "host" command always use DNS. try ping, telnet, whatever use IP connections $ host example.example.org Host example not found 3(NXDOMAIN) What am I doing wrong here that is keeping /etc/hosts from being read? -- Thanks, Josh Paetzel ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: /etc/hosts isn't being read
Josh Paetzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have a stock 6.0-RELEASE box that doesn't seem to be > reading /etc/hosts > > In /etc/hosts I have: > > 192.168.1.101 example example.example.org > > /etc/nsswitch.conf is stock: > > group: compat > group_compat: nis > hosts: files dns > networks: files > passwd: compat > passwd_compat: nis > shells: files > > $ host example > Host example not found: 3(NXDOMAIN) > > $ host example.example.org > Host example not found 3(NXDOMAIN) Did host ever query /etc/hosts? > What am I doing wrong here that is keeping /etc/hosts from being read? Does ping ignore /etc/hosts as well? [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $host localhost Host localhost not found: 3(NXDOMAIN) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ping localhost PING localhost (127.0.0.1): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.383 ms ^C --- localhost ping statistics --- 1 packets transmitted, 1 packets received, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.383/0.383/0.383/0.000 ms Fabian -- http://www.fabiankeil.de/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
/etc/hosts isn't being read
I have a stock 6.0-RELEASE box that doesn't seem to be reading /etc/hosts In /etc/hosts I have: 192.168.1.101 example example.example.org /etc/nsswitch.conf is stock: group: compat group_compat: nis hosts: files dns networks: files passwd: compat passwd_compat: nis shells: files $ host example Host example not found: 3(NXDOMAIN) $ host example.example.org Host example not found 3(NXDOMAIN) What am I doing wrong here that is keeping /etc/hosts from being read? -- Thanks, Josh Paetzel ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Userland "dig/host" for lookups against /etc/hosts?
it was said: >It works if I ping 'hostname', but how can I find out the IP of >'hostname' from the command line? Hello, Would not grep 'hostname' /etc/hosts do this? HTH, stheg __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Userland "dig/host" for lookups against /etc/hosts?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2005-03-28, Emanuel Strobl scribbled these curious markings: > Is there one? Unfortunately I can't write one myself, at least not > in a reasonable amount of time - --cut-- #!/usr/bin/perl -w use strict; use Socket; my $host = shift or die "usage: hostshost hostname\n"; my $addr = gethostbyname($host); die "Cannot resolve host '$host'.\n" unless defined $addr; my $ip = inet_ntoa($addr); print "$host has address $ip\n"; - --cut-- Needs some 5.x version of Perl. Works with 5.005_03 as shipped in FreeBSD 4.x. Also works with more recent perls. Best Regards, Christopher Nehren -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFCR6Rpk/lo7zvzJioRAg8pAJ4s69gjARzlc/ZL5sNKT2vSYa9XFwCbBILr ehnDiO3MuDC3b3nryMUx+Ws= =Z9c9 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- I abhor a system designed for the "user", if that word is a coded pejorative meaning "stupid and unsophisticated". -- Ken Thompson If you ask the wrong questions, you get answers like "42" and "God". Unix is user friendly. However, it isn't idiot friendly. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Userland "dig/host" for lookups against /etc/hosts?
Am Montag, 28. März 2005 08:23 schrieb Alexander Chamandy: > On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 07:17:31 +0200, Emanuel Strobl > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > my testbed lacks of Ethernet Ports so one machine has no connection to my > > DNS, no problem, there is something called /etc/hosts I thought. > > It works if I ping 'hostname', but how can I find out the IP of > > 'hostname' from the command line? dig and host want to contact the DNS > > server, also nslookup does, so I think I need a utility which uses the > > gethostbyname(3) function. Is there one? Unfortunately I can't write one > > myself, at least not in a reasonable amount of time > > May I ask what you're trying to do with the machine? If you just want > local DNS resolution for experimentation you may try running BIND 9 or > TinyDNS. No DNS experiments, I'm very well equiped (authoritative DNS). It's just that my local subnet (productive) has not enough ethernet ports so one test-machine (in another subnet) cannot be connected to the local net and the two other subnets are for testing only, so none routes to my productive net Everything is working fine, just curiosity.. -Harry > > > Thanks, > > > > -Harry pgpaEOOjtheY9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Userland "dig/host" for lookups against /etc/hosts?
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 07:17:31 +0200, Emanuel Strobl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear all, > > my testbed lacks of Ethernet Ports so one machine has no connection to my DNS, > no problem, there is something called /etc/hosts I thought. > It works if I ping 'hostname', but how can I find out the IP of 'hostname' > from the command line? dig and host want to contact the DNS server, also > nslookup does, so I think I need a utility which uses the gethostbyname(3) > function. Is there one? Unfortunately I can't write one myself, at least not > in a reasonable amount of time May I ask what you're trying to do with the machine? If you just want local DNS resolution for experimentation you may try running BIND 9 or TinyDNS. > Thanks, > > -Harry > > > -- Best wishes, Alexander G. Chamandy Webmaster www.bsdfreak.org Your Source For BSD News! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Userland "dig/host" for lookups against /etc/hosts?
Dear all, my testbed lacks of Ethernet Ports so one machine has no connection to my DNS, no problem, there is something called /etc/hosts I thought. It works if I ping 'hostname', but how can I find out the IP of 'hostname' from the command line? dig and host want to contact the DNS server, also nslookup does, so I think I need a utility which uses the gethostbyname(3) function. Is there one? Unfortunately I can't write one myself, at least not in a reasonable amount of time Thanks, -Harry pgpql7mmH14RD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: unsure about /etc/hosts
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Nikolas Britton wrote: > Oliver Fuchs wrote: > > >Hi, > > > >I am at the moment unsure about the localhost entries in my /etc/hosts. > >From /usr/src/etc/hosts I have found this one: > > > ># Host Database > ># > ># This file should contain the addresses and aliases for local hosts that > ># share this file. Replace 'my.domain' below with the domainname of your > ># machine. > ># > ># > >::1 localhost localhost.my.domain > >127.0.0.1localhost localhost.my.domain > > > >So my hostname is I.and.I so the /etc/hosts entry must be: > >::1 localhost localhost.and.I > >127.0.0.1localhost localhost.and.I > > > >Now regarding some programs (e.g. mutt) this option is not able to deliver > >mail locally instead putting it in /var/spool/mqueue or > >/var/spool/clientmqueue. > > > >If I use this: > >::1 localhost I.and.I > >127.0.0.1 localhost I.and.I > > > >I have no problems with sending the mail locally. So I am a little bit > >confused about what is the correct way to define the localhost in > >/etc/hosts. > > > >Thanx in advance > > > >Oliver > > > > > I'd like to know this too as I have seen meny diffrent ways too layout > the hosts file. here what I got in mine: In the FAQs I finally have found a third one which I am now using: ::1 I.and.I I localhost 127.0.0.1 I.and.I I localhost > > ::1localhost localhost.intranet > 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.intranet > ::1spectra spectra.intranet > 127.0.0.1 spectra spectra.intranet > > but this same hosts file also says to do it like this: > # Imaginary network. > #10.0.0.2 myname.my.domain myname > #10.0.0.3 myfriend.my.domain myfriend > > So which way do you list them. And say spectra.intranet (me) am I > suppost to list it as localhost or the real ip address? > > > -- ... don't touch the bang bang fruit ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: unsure about /etc/hosts
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Dick Davies wrote: > * Oliver Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [1107 21:07]: > > > # Host Database > > # > > # This file should contain the addresses and aliases for local hosts that > > # share this file. Replace 'my.domain' below with the domainname of your > > # machine. > > # > > # > > ::1 localhost localhost.my.domain > > 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.my.domain > > > > So my hostname is I.and.I so the /etc/hosts entry must be: > > ::1 localhost localhost.and.I > > 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.and.I > > > > Now regarding some programs (e.g. mutt) this option is not able to deliver > > mail locally instead putting it in /var/spool/mqueue or > > /var/spool/clientmqueue. > > > > If I use this: > > ::1 localhost I.and.I > > 127.0.0.1 localhost I.and.I > > This sets your hostname to point to the localhost address - is that what you > want? Normally, you set your hostname to a public IP (or at least a network > connected IP) > > i.e. > > ::1 localhost localhost.and.I > 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.and.I > 1.2.3.4 I.and.I What I would like to know is the localhost entry. I always thought you absolutely need this entry in /etc/hosts and it is the first entry to be made? But I am not quiet sure about the way how to set the localhost name right in /etc/hosts. From what I have read I found three possibilities: ::1 I.and.I I localhost 127.0.0.1 I.and.I I localhost ::1 localhost localhost.and.I 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.and.I ::1 localhost I.and.I 127.0.0.1 localhost I.and.I Which one is the correct way to define localhost? Oliver > > Jah love. > > > -- > Oh how awful. Did he at least die peacefully? To shreds you say, tsk tsk > tsk. > Well, how's his wife holding up? To shreds, you say... - Prof. Farnsworth > Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns > ___ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" -- ... don't touch the bang bang fruit ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: unsure about /etc/hosts
Oliver Fuchs wrote: Hi, I am at the moment unsure about the localhost entries in my /etc/hosts. From /usr/src/etc/hosts I have found this one: # Host Database # # This file should contain the addresses and aliases for local hosts that # share this file. Replace 'my.domain' below with the domainname of your # machine. # # ::1 localhost localhost.my.domain 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.my.domain So my hostname is I.and.I so the /etc/hosts entry must be: ::1 localhost localhost.and.I 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.and.I Now regarding some programs (e.g. mutt) this option is not able to deliver mail locally instead putting it in /var/spool/mqueue or /var/spool/clientmqueue. If I use this: ::1 localhost I.and.I 127.0.0.1 localhost I.and.I I have no problems with sending the mail locally. So I am a little bit confused about what is the correct way to define the localhost in /etc/hosts. Thanx in advance Oliver I'd like to know this too as I have seen meny diffrent ways too layout the hosts file. here what I got in mine: ::1localhost localhost.intranet 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.intranet ::1spectra spectra.intranet 127.0.0.1 spectra spectra.intranet but this same hosts file also says to do it like this: # Imaginary network. #10.0.0.2 myname.my.domain myname #10.0.0.3 myfriend.my.domain myfriend So which way do you list them. And say spectra.intranet (me) am I suppost to list it as localhost or the real ip address? ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: unsure about /etc/hosts
* Oliver Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [1107 21:07]: > # Host Database > # > # This file should contain the addresses and aliases for local hosts that > # share this file. Replace 'my.domain' below with the domainname of your > # machine. > # > # > ::1 localhost localhost.my.domain > 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.my.domain > > So my hostname is I.and.I so the /etc/hosts entry must be: > ::1 localhost localhost.and.I > 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.and.I > > Now regarding some programs (e.g. mutt) this option is not able to deliver > mail locally instead putting it in /var/spool/mqueue or > /var/spool/clientmqueue. > > If I use this: > ::1 localhost I.and.I > 127.0.0.1 localhost I.and.I This sets your hostname to point to the localhost address - is that what you want? Normally, you set your hostname to a public IP (or at least a network connected IP) i.e. ::1 localhost localhost.and.I 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.and.I 1.2.3.4 I.and.I Jah love. -- Oh how awful. Did he at least die peacefully? To shreds you say, tsk tsk tsk. Well, how's his wife holding up? To shreds, you say... - Prof. Farnsworth Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
unsure about /etc/hosts
Hi, I am at the moment unsure about the localhost entries in my /etc/hosts. From /usr/src/etc/hosts I have found this one: # Host Database # # This file should contain the addresses and aliases for local hosts that # share this file. Replace 'my.domain' below with the domainname of your # machine. # # ::1 localhost localhost.my.domain 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.my.domain So my hostname is I.and.I so the /etc/hosts entry must be: ::1 localhost localhost.and.I 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.and.I Now regarding some programs (e.g. mutt) this option is not able to deliver mail locally instead putting it in /var/spool/mqueue or /var/spool/clientmqueue. If I use this: ::1 localhost I.and.I 127.0.0.1 localhost I.and.I I have no problems with sending the mail locally. So I am a little bit confused about what is the correct way to define the localhost in /etc/hosts. Thanx in advance Oliver -- ... don't touch the bang bang fruit ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
unsure about /etc/hosts
Hi, I am at the moment unsure about the localhost entries in my /etc/hosts. From /usr/src/etc/hosts I have found this one: # Host Database # # This file should contain the addresses and aliases for local hosts that # share this file. Replace 'my.domain' below with the domainname of your # machine. # # ::1 localhost localhost.my.domain 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.my.domain So my hostname is I.and.I so the /etc/hosts entry must be: ::1 localhost localhost.and.I 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.and.I Now regarding some programs (e.g. mutt) this option is not able to deliver mail locally instead putting it in /var/spool/mqueue or /var/spool/clientmqueue. If I use this: ::1 localhost I.and.I 127.0.0.1 localhost I.and.I I have no problems with sending the mail locally. So I am a little bit confused about what is the correct way to define the localhost in /etc/hosts. Thanx in advance Oliver -- ... don't touch the bang bang fruit ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Odd /etc/hosts entry
On Jul 26, Bill Moran wrote: > That's an IPv6 entry. > > You may want to recompile your kernel without IPv6 support while you're at > it. If you don't understand IPv6, removing support from the kernel can > head off problems before they happen. Ahh, yes. That's for the tip! -Clint -- Clint Olsen. -- . clint at NULlsen dot net .' ,-. `. ;_,' ( ; `.``;' FreeBSD: Rebooting is for hardware upgrades. ` -- ' ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Odd /etc/hosts entry
Its for ip6. On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, Clint Olsen wrote: So, I just debugged a majorly annoying problem doing port forwarding with SSH. Thanks to some creative Googling, I realized I had a weird entry in my hosts file. What does this "::1" entry mean? #::1localhost localhost.my.domain -Clint ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Odd /etc/hosts entry
> So, I just debugged a majorly annoying problem doing port forwarding with > SSH. Thanks to some creative Googling, I realized I had a weird entry in > my hosts file. What does this "::1" entry mean? > > #::1 localhost localhost.my.domain It's an entry for IPv6, and it is commented out (not used). ::1 is the IP for localhost with IPv6, exactly the same as 127.0.0.1 is for v4. Steve > > -Clint > ___ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Odd /etc/hosts entry
Clint Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, I just debugged a majorly annoying problem doing port forwarding with > SSH. Thanks to some creative Googling, I realized I had a weird entry in > my hosts file. What does this "::1" entry mean? > > #::1 localhost localhost.my.domain That's an IPv6 entry. You may want to recompile your kernel without IPv6 support while you're at it. If you don't understand IPv6, removing support from the kernel can head off problems before they happen. -- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Odd /etc/hosts entry
So, I just debugged a majorly annoying problem doing port forwarding with SSH. Thanks to some creative Googling, I realized I had a weird entry in my hosts file. What does this "::1" entry mean? #::1localhost localhost.my.domain -Clint ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: [Fwd: /etc/hosts and /etc/host.conf confusion]
At Sun, 4 Jul 2004 it looks like David Fuchs composed: > Excellent, ping does resolve a new entry in /etc/hosts properly. So as > you said, `host' is doing it's own thing. The manpage for host gives me > some leads which I'll follow through on. Hmm, in the Unix boxes I've seen, there is a file called /etc/nsswitch.conf that will have a line called "hosts:" it will dictate the order by which names are resolved. If you have the following your system will look at the /etc/hosts file first, then NISplus, then DNS. If you were to have "dns" first, it would ignore your /etc/hosts file (first) and hit your dns looking for answers. /etc/nsswitch.conf hosts: files nisplus dns -- Bill Schoolcraft PO Box 210076 -o) San Francisco CA 94121 /\ "UNIX, A Way Of Life."_\_v http://billschoolcraft.com ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: [Fwd: /etc/hosts and /etc/host.conf confusion]
Kevin Stevens wrote: Try ping; even if the host isn't available you can see if it resolves. "host" does it's own thing, which is sometimes non-obvious (to me at least). Look at the sections in man host about the variables it expects to be configured. Excellent, ping does resolve a new entry in /etc/hosts properly. So as you said, `host' is doing it's own thing. The manpage for host gives me some leads which I'll follow through on. The latter. For example, many workstations aren't configured to run named at all; they'll still reference their local hosts file. Perfect! It's good to know this, as the manpage doesn't specifically state that the system checks for a running named process - at least I didn't see that anywhere. Thanks for your help Kevin! -- Thanks, -David Fuchs ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
