Hi,
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 11:28:45PM +0200, Hans du Plooy wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> Just wondering, which is correct:
>
> 127.0.0.1localhost.localdomainlocalhost
>
> or
>
> 127.0.0.1localhost
>
> The linux networking howto
> (http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/NET3-4-HOWTO-5.html
On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 11:03 +, David Hart wrote:
> On Sat 2006-11-25 23:58:42 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 07:51:49PM -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote:
> > >
> > > I've had stand-alone (aka secure) boxes called localhost, with only the
> > > standard 127.0.0.1 /etc/hosts
On Sat 2006-11-25 23:58:42 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 07:51:49PM -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote:
> >
> > I've had stand-alone (aka secure) boxes called localhost, with only the
> > standard 127.0.0.1 /etc/hosts entry. Never had a problem.
>
> Never tried to install leafn
On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 07:51:49PM -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 12:17:03AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2006-11-21 15:49:07 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
> > Indeed your hosts.allow probably wasn't complete. In addition to
> > localhost, you should have a
On 2006-11-22 13:41:22 +0100, David Jardine wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 12:17:03AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>
> > Well, the result of the hostname command depends on the /etc/hosts
> > file and if your configuration is incorrect, it may not give you a
> > consistent result.
>
> Not her
On 2006-11-21 19:51:49 -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 12:17:03AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > The machine should always have a FQDN, though it may be resolved
> > locally only (in particular if your machine is not on a network).
> > Otherwise you'll have problems with so
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 12:17:03AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>
> > Well, the result of the hostname command depends on the /etc/hosts
> > file and if your configuration is incorrect, it may not give you a
> > consistent result.
On 22.11.06 13:41, David Jardine wrote:
> Not here. It uses th
On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 12:17:03AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> Well, the result of the hostname command depends on the /etc/hosts
> file and if your configuration is incorrect, it may not give you a
> consistent result.
Not here. It uses the /etc/hostname file. I changed the entry in
/etc
On 2006-11-21 15:49:07 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> I was talking about problem with 'hostname', not problem with 'hosts'.
Sorry, this wasn't clear.
> Why do you still talk about 'hosts'?
Well, the result of the hostname command depends on the /etc/hosts
file and if your configuration
On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 12:17:03AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2006-11-21 15:49:07 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> Indeed your hosts.allow probably wasn't complete. In addition to
> localhost, you should have added the hostname. Or perhaps the IP
> address 127.0.0.1.
>
> > there of
> Am 2006-11-13 02:07:52, schrieb David Jardine:
> > To muddy the water a little more, I have
> >
> > 127.0.0.1 quash localhost loopback
On 19.11.06 15:14, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> This is definitivly wrong!
>
> An /etc/hosts file can have only 3 fields plus comment.
no, there may be
On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 at 03:14:48PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> An /etc/hosts file can have only 3 fields plus comment.
Who says?
--
David Jardine
"Running Debian GNU/Linux and
loving every minute of it." -L. von Sacher-M.(1835-1895)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2006-11-13 02:07:52, schrieb David Jardine:
To muddy the water a little more, I have
127.0.0.1 quash localhost loopback
This is definitivly wrong!
An /etc/hosts file can have only 3 fields plus comment.
It should be
127.0.0.1 localho
Am 2006-11-13 02:07:52, schrieb David Jardine:
> To muddy the water a little more, I have
>
> 127.0.0.1 quash localhost loopback
This is definitivly wrong!
An /etc/hosts file can have only 3 fields plus comment.
It should be
127.0.0.1 localhost localhost #
On 17.11.06 08:25, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2006-11-14 09:19:09 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > I do and I did. However, "hostname -s", contrary to hostname's manual page,
> > does not return first segment of the system hostname, but resolves the FQDN
> > first and returns first segment
On 2006-11-14 09:19:09 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> I do and I did. However, "hostname -s", contrary to hostname's manual page,
> does not return first segment of the system hostname, but resolves the FQDN
> first and returns first segment of the resulting hostname. See my (refused)
> bug
On 13.11.06 13:21, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2006-11-13 10:48:12 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > some time ago I was pondering about this issue, because having
> > 'fnote' (name of by notebook) as first caused problems with some
> > services expecting 127.0.0.1 to map to localhost (which
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 08:57:01PM -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 02:07:52AM +0100, David Jardine wrote:
>
> > To muddy the water a little more, I have
> >
> > 127.0.0.1 quash localhost loopback
> >
> > where "quash" is the name of the machine. I don't remember
On 2006-11-13 10:48:12 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> some time ago I was pondering about this issue, because having
> 'fnote' (name of by notebook) as first caused problems with some
> services expecting 127.0.0.1 to map to localhost (which is imho a
> MUST), and 'hostname -s' returned 'lo
Hans du Plooy wrote:
>
> 127.0.0.1localhost.localdomainlocalhost
This is the default Debian configuration, but it is a good
question as to why it is necessary.
You have to use "hostname.domainhostname" format for a real
hostname and domain, but what is the point with loca
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 02:07:52AM +0100, David Jardine wrote:
> > To muddy the water a little more, I have
> >
> > 127.0.0.1 quash localhost loopback
> >
> > where "quash" is the name of the machine. I don't remember how I came
> > to do this, but it must have been from some debian
On 12.11.06 23:28, Hans du Plooy wrote:
> Just wondering, which is correct:
>
> 127.0.0.1localhost.localdomainlocalhost
>
> or
>
> 127.0.0.1localhost
I think that the second one is correct. Imho, 127.0.0.1 should always map to
'localhost' without domain, even if some oth
On Sun, 2006-11-12 at 17:15 -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 11:28:45PM +0200, Hans du Plooy wrote:
> > 127.0.0.1localhost.localdomainlocalhost
> >
> > I was always under the impression the first is the proper way. I seem
> > to be having issues with resovling
On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 02:07:52AM +0100, David Jardine wrote:
> To muddy the water a little more, I have
>
> 127.0.0.1 quash localhost loopback
>
> where "quash" is the name of the machine. I don't remember how I came
> to do this, but it must have been from some debian documenta
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 11:28:45PM +0200, Hans du Plooy wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> Just wondering, which is correct:
>
> 127.0.0.1localhost.localdomainlocalhost
>
> or
>
> 127.0.0.1localhost
>
> The linux networking howto
> (http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/NET3-4-HOWTO-5.html) mud
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 11:28:45PM +0200, Hans du Plooy wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> Just wondering, which is correct:
>
> 127.0.0.1localhost.localdomainlocalhost
>
> I was always under the impression the first is the proper way. I seem
> to be having issues with resovling localhost
Hi guys,
Just wondering, which is correct:
127.0.0.1localhost.localdomainlocalhost
or
127.0.0.1localhost
The linux networking howto
(http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/NET3-4-HOWTO-5.html) muddies the water even
more:
127.0.0.1 localhost loopback
I was always under th
27 matches
Mail list logo
