 | | | Notifications email failure - SOLVED (Clarification) | Notifications email failure - SOLVED (Clarification) 2005-09-08 - By Jeff Boyce
Back
Ed Wilts stated:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 11:05:34AM -0700, Roger Pe???a Escobio wrote:
> --- Garrick Staples <garrick@(protected)> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 09:11:31AM -0700, Jeff Boyce alleged:
> > > This is a two part solution. First I changed my
> > /etc/hosts file by adding bison to the local host line, which now reads:
> > > 127.0.0.1 bison localhost.localdomain localhost
> >
> > Ooo, that's probably going to break something else. You want
> > localhost to have matching forward and reverse name lookups.
> >
> > I've always disagreed with Red Hat's convention of "127.0.0.1
> > localhost.localdomain localhost" and always change it to "127.0.0.1
> > localhost localhost.localdomain". Putting your hostname at the end
> > of the 127.0.0.1 line is acceptable, but putting in at the beginning
> > is a ticking bomb.
> >
> I am sorry my ignorance but why?
>
> I always follow the rule of first the fully qualify hostname then the
> alias of that host sometimes I have more than one line with the same
> IP number but different hostnames
This is correct. Always put the fully qualified host name first, then
the aliases. When you type 'hostname', you should get the fully
qualified host name, not the short name. The line should read:
127.0.0.1 bison.example.com bison localhost localhost.localdomain
or break it up into the more proper:
127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.localdomain
1.2.3.4 bison.example.com bison
with the host's IP address pointing to the fully qualified name,
assuming that the domain is example.com of course.
> now it looks that I am wrong so I just want to know why :-)
You're not wrong.
.../Ed
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Some additional information may help clarifiy this situation for me and
others, even though I was able to resolve the original issue.
I have never fully understood a FQDN for the situation in which my server /
network is setup. I don't believe I have a FQDN, which may be why I don't
understand the discussion and other technical documents associated with this
topic. When I query 'hostname' it returns "Bison" as that is the name of my
server. It is not bison.meridian.com, as it is my understanding that a FQDN
is not necessary or maybe not desirable for my situation. The server is
entirely within our LAN as it is behind our DSL gateway router (which has a
static IP and does NAT). All of our internal hardware has static IP's as it
is easier to manage the few number of pieces that we have. This may help
others understand what might be the optimal solution for my original
problem. So if my original solution is going to cause me some additional
heartache somewhere I would appreciate a clear understanding of the problem
and a potential solution. Thanks for the continuing discussion everyone.
Jeff Boyce
www.meridianenv.com
--
Taroon-list mailing list
Taroon-list@(protected)
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/taroon-list
Earn $52 per hosting referral at Lunarpages.
|
|
|