-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 05:47:58 -0400
Jesse Keating <jkeating(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:43:42 +0200
"Alexander Boström" <abo(a)kth.se> wrote:
> While I do believe Kerberos protocols, libs or apps should be
> smarter about these things sometimes and I'm not sure what really
> happens here (though I've seen this happen a few times) I really do
> think Kerberos is in its right to complain when it's fed lies. If
> you put the hostname on the 127.0.0.1 line, doesn't that override
> everything DNS says?
Almost every single location I take my laptop there is no dns entry
for my hostname. Relying upon every hostname to be DNS resolvable is
extremely dated thinking.
We use Kerberos here. I have the notebooks hostname on the 127.0.0.1 line in my
/etc/hosts file. Kerberos doesn't complain.
IMNSHO, the /etc/hosts file is only for making sure that the box can resolve itself
regardless of what's going on with whatever network(s) it's plugged into at the
moment. Period. There are plenty of daemons that will grumble if you use names in the
configuration and it can't resolve them (like MTAs, for example, in some parts of
Lamont Peterson <lamont(a)gurulabs.com>
Guru Labs, L.C. [ http://www.GuruLabs.com/
NOTE: All messages from this email address should be digitally signed with my
0xDC0DD409 GPG key. It is available on the pgp.mit.edu
well as other keyservers that sync with MIT's.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----