Messages On Startup

[phn at icke-reklam.ipsec.nu]

Kevin Darcy <kcd at daimlerchrysler.com> wrote:
> Barry Margolin wrote:

>>In article <cge2go$1ub7$1 at sf1.isc.org>,
>> Kevin Darcy <kcd at daimlerchrysler.com> wrote:
>>
>>  
>>
>>>Barry Margolin wrote:
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>>>In article <cg6c75$nm3$1 at sf1.isc.org>,
>>>>Kevin Darcy <kcd at daimlerchrysler.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>>      
>>>>
>>>>>Hmmm, okay, I'll go tell our plant-floor folks that they can't use their 
>>>>>paint-control/milling/stamping/machining/welding/electronics-testing 
>>>>>devices any more and they'll just have to improvise somehow...
>>>>>   
>>>>>
>>>>>        
>>>>>
>>>>What's your problem?  Just put "check-names master ignore" in the 
>>>>options section and you'll be all set.
>>>>
>>>>      
>>>>
>>>My only point is that a default setting of "fail" would be rather 
>>>Internet-biased and misguided.
>>>    
>>>
>>
>>Another point in favor of that default is that it's a safer setting.  If 
>>you're connecting to the Internet and don't have things configured in 
>>the standard way, you can cause problems for others.  So it's best to 
>>have the defaults correct for the interoperation cases.
>>
>>If the default doesn't match your needs for private use, they only 
>>inconvenience you, not anyone else.
>>
> I can sort of see that point, Barry, but as I've already asserted in 
> this thread, it's usually large organizations that host DNS, 
> organizations that can be expected to have hardened processes that 
> prevent interoperability-causing data to be loaded into any nameserver 
> at all. So for that small category, a conservative check-names seems 
> rather superfluous. I would also point out that such large organizations 
> have an *incentive* to be as interoperable as possible, since more 
> interoperability means more visitors to the site(s), more interest in 
> the products, more sales, more revenue, etc. So if underscores cause 
> interoperability problems -- and I still remain rather skeptical about 
> that assertion -- then those orgs are going to crack down on 
> underscores, and if they have any brains at all, they'll stop the 
> underscores in a way that doesn't involve bringing down the whole zone 
> (which is basically the blunt-instrument approach that "check-names 
> fail" takes).

>                                                                          
>                                        - Kevin

I don't see why underscores should be used AT ALL, there have been 
at various times problems, it _is_ against RFC. Why use something
that _might_ impare when other characters are available ??




-- 
Peter Håkanson         
        IPSec  Sverige      ( At Gothenburg Riverside )
           Sorry about my e-mail address, but i'm trying to keep spam out,
	   remove "icke-reklam" if you feel for mailing me. Thanx.