[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: domain names, was: hostname

On Thu 22 Mar 2018 at 20:26:26 (+0000), Brian wrote:
> On Thu 22 Mar 2018 at 12:44:53 -0500, David Wright wrote:
> [...]
> > Here are my points, as it's a month since I made them. I didn't
> > quite answer the question as posed.
> > 
> > --✄------
> > 
> > > that as well as being asked to supply a hostname I've also been asked
> > > to supply a domain value.
> > >
> > > What, on a home LAN, is that used for?
> > 
> > Nothing, with the possible exceptions of:
> > 
> > . avoiding this message at boot up:
> >   Mon Feb 19 04:58:38 2018: [....] Starting MTA:hostname --fqdn did not return a fully qualified name,
> >   Mon Feb 19 04:58:38 2018: dc_minimaldns will not work. Please fix your /etc/hosts setup.
> > 
> > . satisfying a broken smarthost¹,
> > 
> > . causing some discussion here.
> > 
> > --✄------
> > 
> > My last point may become less true over time because, as I already
> > just posted, there is now an authoritative answer: If you don't
> > know what to put, put home, corp, or mail, as you wish. They are
> > guaranteed never to become TLDs in the future.
> The d-i prompt says:
>  > The domain name is the part of your Internet address to the right of your
>  > host name.  It is often something that ends in .com, .net, .edu, or .org.
>  > If you are setting up a home network, you can make something up, but make
>  > sure you use the same domain name on all your computers.
> There you are: a home user can just invent something. mybrilliantdomain.com
> would do.

It's out of date advice. I'll post the reference again.
"Resolved (2018.02.04.12), the Board directs the President and CEO, or
his designee(s), that the applications for .CORP, .HOME, and .MAIL
should not proceed and, to account for the unforeseen impact to
application processing, the Board directs the President and CEO to,
upon withdrawal of the remaining applications for .CORP, .HOME, and
.MAIL, provide the applicants a full refund of the New gTLD Program
application fee of $185,000."

> Why agonise over it.

I don't. Others do. It appeared to worry Greg when he posted

> Whatever is chosen goes into /etc/hosts.
> A long time ago, the advice was:
>  > Please enter your domain name or leave this field empty if you don't have
>  > a domain.

which still works.

> > Currently I have an empty string. When I next reorganise my network
> > here to include bridging, I might consider using .home (it's the
> > most appropriate). It affords me no particular advantage as far as
> > I can see, but I remain open to persuasion that it has some use.
> > What exactly, though? (Still a genuine question, but keep off email
> > or we're in danger of getting in a loop.)
> An empty string is fine. Just do it; you will be happy with it.

I was. Others weren't.¹

> > I'm not convinced that I, and many in my situation, would be better
> > off running a mail server rather than having an organisation run a
> > smarthost to do it on my behalf. (They also take care of incoming mail
> > by running an IMAP server.)
> Nobody has really tried to convince you that running a mail server is
> better for *you*.

I don't know about that. "You don't talk to people except through an
intermediary? I prefer to know what happens to the mails I send."
And others trying to convince me to make a change that might be
necessary were I running a mail server.¹

> (You actually do run a mail server but use it for relaying, not sending
> directly. Greg Wooledge's posts are very informative. Please try to see
> the distinctions).

A bit late to say that. If there are ambiguities in what I have
written, point them out without patronising.

How about the term Mail Submission Agent. Would that make you happier?

> > I think the political discussion arises here because people don't
> > recognise that just contributing to this list makes one unusual in
> > itself (and I include myself in that). There may be divers diverse
> > reasons to run a mail server, but count me out along with many others.
> Ben Finney's post really got to you, didn't it?
>   https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2018/03/msg00738.html

Only in as much as the post implied I was arbitrarily denying people
from doing something and demanding their reasons for wanting to do it.
I don't know if this was because Ben hadn't been following the thread
last month, but I can see that without the context of our previous
conversation, it might be possible to take a different meaning from
my paragraph. Why are you worried about it?

¹ This is the second time in two months. In January I revealed that I
use IPv6 to make temporary local connections, was scolded for it and
told that I should be using IPv4 instead. After following all their
proffered instructions, it was evident that there was a lot more work
involved in doing it their way compared with the simplicity of what I
was doing.


Reply to: