easy question

[Kevin Darcy]

flaps at dgp.toronto.edu wrote:

> Kevin Darcy <kcd at daimlerchrysler.com> writes:
> >If you want an efficient method free of any arbitrary restrictions, get
> >your users to form the habit of using fully-qualified names. It's what
> >they have to use for Internet email and Internet web browsing,
>
> No more than for anything else.  If you have a search list of "example.com",
> you can normally mail to user at fred if you're sending to user at fred.example.com.

> You can certainly type http://www into your web browser if you're looking for
> www.example.com.

Do you know anyone with Internet mail and web access who only needs to surf/mail
6 domains or less? Neither do I. That's how many searchlist slots there are on a
typical platform, and you have to use FQDN's for everything else. When I said
"... they have to use [FQDN's] for Internet email and Internet web browsing,
..." I was referring to the vast majority of Internet-connected users, not some
tiny subset with meager requirements.

> The idea of appending every sub-part of the domain to the query is silly, I
> agree.  I don't even much mind the rule which says to use the search list only
> if the hostname being resolved doesn't have a dot in it.

It's a convenience to be able to use short names. But, it's an
*obsolete* convenience, a throwback to the days when people had to type out
hostnames in order to connect to them, the vast majority of the time. But
searchlists waste nameserver resources, slow query resolution, and have been
superceded by more advanced technology like bookmarks, portals and so forth,
which obviate the need for "all that typing" in the first place. So let's put a
bullet in searchlists. At the very least, let's not *recommend* searchlists to
folks who are just getting their feet wet with DNS administration. Maybe if each
successive generation of sysadmins foregoes searchlists, then the whole mechanism
will eventually just wither away.

> But a deliberate search list has its uses, just like the ability to omit an
> area code from local telephone calls.

Yeah, I used to do that too. But then Southeastern Michigan popped out 3 new area
codes in the last 10 years or so, so I stopped relying on it -- a number which
didn't require an area code one week suddenly needed one the next week; it was
too much of a hassle to be constantly reprogramming dialers, rewriting phone
lists, etc. so I just started including area codes on all phone numbers, even for
the convience store on the corner, or the pizza place down the road.

Global addressing schemes are generally a Good Thing. No ambiguities. Even
telephone dialers are automated these days, so what's the big deal in programming
the area code (analogous to bookmarking an FQDN) *once* and then never having to
worry about it again?


- Kevin