Simple question about zone and CNAME

[Matus UHLAR - fantomas]

>>In article <mailman.49.1365191296.20661.bind-users at lists.isc.org>,
>>  WBrown at e1b.org wrote:
>>>And then there's theses folks:
>>>
>>>http://no-www.org/

>On 04/08/2013 06:42 AM, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>Is co-opting high-level name space for a single protocol a modern-day
>>landgrab?

On 08.04.13 20:58, Doug Barton wrote:
>Is holding on to the antiquated notion that every protocol needs a 
>unique hostname charmingly anachronistic, or just plain 
>obstructionist? (See what I did there?)

it's kind of best practice for cases a domain contains more hosts with
different usage. But you know this, don't you?

>For bonus points, list the number of services running on your typical 
>server configuration, and then tell us how many of them have their 
>own hostnames. Start with dns, ssh, and ntp.

confinue with smtp/pop/imap. The www belongs to these, not to the
dns/ssh/ntp 

>The point being that the world moved on, and putting websites on 
>hostnames that don't start with www. is the common case now. Can we 
>save our energy for something more productive?

Why did you post this then?

-- 
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar at fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.