And the consequences of that are…?
It's not just localhost but anything and everything in /etc/hosts that
is not otherwise reflected by DNS.
And the consequences of that are? I run Bind to provide DNS for my 3
computer network. It's hardly an overhead, it also provides a caching
name server for requests, and squid likewise does not use /etc/hosts.
Secondly, /etc/hosts is there specifically to provide a "static
table
of host names".
/etc/hosts is ancient legacy left over from the time before DNS.
Before DNS came about, everyone used a host file to map IP addresses
to hostnames. DNS replaced that procedure several decades ago.
Is that so? DNS *replaced* that procedure? Explain, then, the
presence
of an /etc/hosts file on *every* 'nix machine I have ever used, from
*BSD to every flavor of Linux, ever. "replaced"? Supplemented, yes.
Supplanted for non-local hosts, yes. But /etc/hosts has not been
replaced. Is there an /etc/hosts file on your machine? Nowhere does
it
say in the courier docs that courier doesn't rely on the host machine's
name resolution capabilities.
]$ cat /etc/hosts
##
# Host Database
#
# localhost is used to configure the loopback interface
# when the system is booting. Do not change this entry.
##
127.0.0.1 localhost
255.255.255.255 broadcasthost
::1 localhost
Well, there's the reason for /etc/hosts - so the loopback interface can
work before DNS comes up.
I honestly find it ridiculous that courier doesn't consider using
/etc/hosts, assuming that all users of courier *must* have access to a
nameserver.
Courier is a mail server targeted at people who send and receive mail,
and as such expects them to have some sort of name server. My external
IP has a DNS entry so I can actually use my mail server (and my
internal hosts have dynamic entries from DHCP), and if you're managing
a network large enough to have internal mail servers and still using
/etc/hosts, I really pity you.
17 messages in net.sourceforge.lists.courier-usersRe: [courier-users] Re: couriertls, r...
