On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 01:57:48 -0700, Perry Hutchison wrote:
> Is there a limit on line length in FreeBSD's /etc/hosts?
>
> I'm not finding any mention of such a limit in hosts(5), but characters
> beyond the first 660 or so seem to be ignored.
>
> To answer the in
Hi,
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:09:29 +0100
Erik Nørgaard wrote:
> On 27 Mar 2013, at 09:57, per...@pluto.rain.com (Perry Hutchison)
> wrote:
>
> > Is there a limit on line length in FreeBSD's /etc/hosts?
> >
> > I'm not finding any mention of such a limit i
On 27 Mar 2013, at 09:57, per...@pluto.rain.com (Perry Hutchison) wrote:
> Is there a limit on line length in FreeBSD's /etc/hosts?
>
> I'm not finding any mention of such a limit in hosts(5), but
> characters beyond the first 660 or so seem to be ignored.
>
> To an
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 01:57:48 -0700, Perry Hutchison wrote:
> I can easily suppress access to unwanted web sites by adding
> names to the localhost line in /etc/hosts, like this:
>
> 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.my.domain bad1.com bad2.com ...
>
> My version of that line
Is there a limit on line length in FreeBSD's /etc/hosts?
I'm not finding any mention of such a limit in hosts(5), but
characters beyond the first 660 or so seem to be ignored.
To answer the inevitable followup "why would anyone need such
a long line in /etc/hosts":
Wi
s
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "
> freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
>
Could you clarify in regards to what you want sendmail to actually use
/etc/host for?
If your intent is to re-map where mail destined for a given host/domain goes
- (ie override DNS MX reco
Hello
My problem: sendmail skipping /etc/host and use MX record. Somebody
have any ide how use sendmail /etc/host file?
Dec 9 20:58:23 www sm-mta[29438]: oB9Fxmx0027174:
to=, delay=03:58:35, xdelay=00:00:00, mailer=esmtp,
pri=1313137, relay=mail.mouseoleum.hu., dsn=4.0.0, stat=Deferred:
Connecti
On Saturday 06 June 2009 20:44:38 Tim Judd wrote:
> On 6/4/09, Peter wrote:
> > I do not think /etc/hosts does round robin, I always assumed first match
> > wins...DNS/bind I would understand...
It's the same library call: gethostbyname(3) and friends.
> > Why d
On 6/4/09, Peter wrote:
>> On Thursday 04 June 2009 20:48:21 Peter wrote:
>>> iH,
>>> This all started with NFS not mounting at bootso, testing in VMs:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Why is ping using one IP, and ssh/mount_nfs/showmount using another IP
> On Thursday 04 June 2009 20:48:21 Peter wrote:
>> iH,
>> This all started with NFS not mounting at bootso, testing in VMs:
>
>
>
>> Why is ping using one IP, and ssh/mount_nfs/showmount using another IP
from /etc/hosts?
>
> Q: Where is described that
On Thursday 04 June 2009 20:48:21 Peter wrote:
> iH,
> This all started with NFS not mounting at bootso, testing in VMs:
> Why is ping using one IP, and ssh/mount_nfs/showmount using another IP
> from /etc/hosts?
Q: Where is described that name resolution for A or PTR recor
config_em1="DHCP"
nfs_client_enable="YES"
nfs_server_enable="NO"
rpcbind_enable="NO"
sshd_enable="YES"
client# ifconfig em0|grep inet
inet 172.20.6.2 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 172.20.6.255
inet 116.23.45.2 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 116.2
) and put the
IP into /etc/hosts with a hostname?
Reason for asking
Firewall rules needs refreshing after new IP
Possible answers:
Create dhcp-exit-hooks (undocumented?) in /etc like so:
#!/bin/sh
if [ ! -z "$new_ip_address" ]; then
IP=`ifconfig WAN | grep 'inet' | grep
gt;>> Question: What is the canonical way for catching the IP address from
>>> a DHCP assigned nic (from ISP that doesn't set hostname) and put the
>>> IP into /etc/hosts with a hostname?
>>>
>>> Reason for asking
>>> Firewall rules needs refresh
.
Dualhomed firewalled FreeBSD7.1. One nic is LAN and the other dynamical
IP from ISP.
Question: What is the canonical way for catching the IP address from a
DHCP assigned nic (from ISP that doesn't set hostname) and put the IP
into /etc/hosts with a hostname?
Reason for asking
Firewall rules
canonical way for catching the IP address from a DHCP
assigned nic (from ISP that doesn't set hostname) and put the IP into
/etc/hosts with a hostname?
man dhclient.conf
you can specify your script that will be started on changes, but i won't
tell you ready-to-use example because i ne
dynamical
IP from ISP.
Question: What is the canonical way for catching the IP address from a
DHCP assigned nic (from ISP that doesn't set hostname) and put the IP
into /etc/hosts with a hostname?
Reason for asking
Firewall rules needs refreshing after new IP
Possible answers:
Create dhcp
nditions.
> Dualhomed firewalled FreeBSD7.1. One nic is LAN and the other dynamical
> IP from ISP.
>
> Question: What is the canonical way for catching the IP address from a
> DHCP assigned nic (from ISP that doesn't set hostname) and put the IP
> into /etc/hosts with a hostn
.
Question: What is the canonical way for catching the IP address from a
DHCP assigned nic (from ISP that doesn't set hostname) and put the IP
into /etc/hosts with a hostname?
Reason for asking
Firewall rules needs refreshing after new IP
Possible answers:
Create dhcp-exit-hooks (undocumented
> `ping google.com' actually pings 127.0.0.1 but `host google' returns
> the actual IP addresses for google.
ping will resolve the name using the mecanism defined in
/etc/nsswitch.conf, usually:
hosts: files dns nis
try first /etc/hosts, then DNS, then NIS
But host(1) com
David Naylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am trying to redirect a URL request to a different address but it
> appears that /etc/hosts is not doing the job. Example:
>
> 127.0.0.1 google.com
>
> The way I understand it is that by typing google.com in a web browser
&
Subject: /etc/hosts not working
* PGP Signed: 09/11/08 at 13:49:05
Hi,
I am trying to redirect a URL request to a different address
but it appears
that /etc/hosts is not doing the job. Example
David Naylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am trying to redirect a URL request to a different address but it appears
> that /etc/hosts is not doing the job. Example:
>
> 127.0.0.1 google.com
>
> The way I understand it is that by typing google.com in a web browser it
Hi,
I am trying to redirect a URL request to a different address but it appears
that /etc/hosts is not doing the job. Example:
127.0.0.1 google.com
The way I understand it is that by typing google.com in a web browser it
should result in the local page being displayed. It instead goes to
Derek Ragona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What error are you getting from ping?
I think the OP said he did not have a problem with ping.
--
Sahil Tandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailma
On Sep 1, 2008, at 8:10 PM, Glenn Sieb wrote:
Tom Marchand said the following on 9/1/08 7:52 PM:
Hi,
I've got an issue where hosts defined in my /etc/hosts are not being
resolved. I've looked at resolv.conf, host.conf and nsswitch.conf
and
everything looks ok. It's my understa
Tom Marchand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Everything is set correctly in rc.conf. What I have noticed is that
> ping can resolve hosts from /etc/hosts.
If ping works then everything is fine in /etc/hosts. You haven't told us
what program you'r
Everything is set correctly in rc.conf. What I have noticed is that
ping can resolve hosts from /etc/hosts. I should mention that this
machine has been running for 1.5 years and it wasn't until today that
I've needed to add machines to /etc/hosts.
On Sep 1, 2008, at 8:22
wrote:
Tom Marchand said the following on 9/1/08 7:52 PM:
Hi,
I've got an issue where hosts defined in my /etc/hosts are not being
resolved. I've looked at resolv.conf, host.conf and nsswitch.conf
and
everything looks ok. It's my understanding that with the below
configurati
At 06:52 PM 9/1/2008, Tom Marchand wrote:
Hi,
I've got an issue where hosts defined in my /etc/hosts are not being
resolved. I've looked at resolv.conf, host.conf and nsswitch.conf and
everything looks ok. It's my understanding that with the below
configurations, /etc/hosts
Tom Marchand said the following on 9/1/08 7:52 PM:
> Hi,
>
> I've got an issue where hosts defined in my /etc/hosts are not being
> resolved. I've looked at resolv.conf, host.conf and nsswitch.conf and
> everything looks ok. It's my understanding that with the belo
Hi,
I've got an issue where hosts defined in my /etc/hosts are not being
resolved. I've looked at resolv.conf, host.conf and nsswitch.conf and
everything looks ok. It's my understanding that with the below
configurations, /etc/hosts should be used first then DNS. Correc
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 23:49:53 -0800 (PST)
RSean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> Just curious if anyone has tried regular expressions to handle ads and
> banners.
That's what adzap and similar squid filters do.
___
freebsd-questions@fre
rules very efficiently block ads and banners at the gateway, saving
b/w and improving surfing experience.
Just thought I should mention this.
Cheers!
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/performance-impact-of-large--etc-hosts-files-tp14267018p14493715.html
Sent from the freebsd
Am Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2007 06:52:41 schrieb Gary Kline:
> well, thi sounded great until I read "squid". Isn't that
> something to do with FBSD and Windows? If not, how hard is squid
> to install; what does it do?
You're probably thinking of samba, which is an implementati
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 09:10:15PM +, RW wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:05:53 -0700 (MST)
> Warren Block <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > It may be possible to use an Adblock "subscription" to update a squid
> > setup. That would provide the best of both.
>
> There's no need to do that,
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:05:53 -0700 (MST)
Warren Block <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It may be possible to use an Adblock "subscription" to update a squid
> setup. That would provide the best of both.
There's no need to do that, you can use a script like adzapper with
squid. It's in ports (www/a
kely to be dropped in a few
months."
The other schemes mentioned in this thread (hosts, DNS, squid) work with any
and every web browser. The OP already said he doesn't use Firefox.
Guess I missed that. Having tried 127.0.0.1 entries in /etc/hosts and
squid in an company setting, Adblo
Hi,
Warren Block wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Erich Dollansky wrote:
If you still see unwanted content, just add a line and it will be gone
during your next visit.
Like AdBlockPlus, only more work.
The beauty is, Internet feels still faster then before.
Like AdblockPlus.
It has one ad
Warren Block wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Erich Dollansky wrote:
If you still see unwanted content, just add a line and it will be
gone during your next visit.
Like AdBlockPlus, only more work.
The beauty is, Internet feels still faster then before.
Like AdblockPlus.
It has one advantage
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Erich Dollansky wrote:
If you still see unwanted content, just add a line and it will be gone during
your next visit.
Like AdBlockPlus, only more work.
The beauty is, Internet feels still faster then before.
Like AdblockPlus.
It has one advantage over all those ad re
RW wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:31:08 +
Alex Zbyslaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have zero experience of squid beyond reading about it, but it has
always sounded like a major resource hog.
It depends how you use it. I think you can probably get it down to
about 15 MB, if you eli
e solution to the ad
problem, but it still seems *to me* far more work than dumping a bunch
of hostnames in /etc/hosts. I have, myself, had little or no trouble
with page layouts messing up, but I maybe haven't used the solution on a
large enough scale to notice. But if you really want to c
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:31:08 +
Alex Zbyslaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have zero experience of squid beyond reading about it, but it has
> always sounded like a major resource hog.
It depends how you use it. I think you can probably get it down to
about 15 MB, if you eliminate memory c
Am Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2007 13:38:59 schrieben Sie:
> I want to do precisely the opposite. It should affect only a single
> machine. It would even be better if it would affect only a single
> account on that machine.
Affecting only a single machine/a single account has nothing to do with the
f
n contact the ad
> host.
The point of the exercise is not that apparent to everybody.
> If I've misunderstood something about your approach, please enlighten
> me.
You misunderstood something, just because you and some people do it,
does is it make it the legitimate usage of /etc/hos
;s not, imho, a
firewall solution as Nikos was proposing.
I have zero experience of squid beyond reading about it, but it has
always sounded like a major resource hog. Perhaps just running one
plugin to do just this would be OK?
The advantage of /etc/hosts is simplicity. For a small home netw
Am Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2007 13:01:14 schrieb Alex Zbyslaw:
>
> I don't see how a firewall is appropriate for this (hosts.allow,
> likewise). The point of the exercise is to never even contact the ad host.
Transparent proxy with squid on the firewall? There's even plugins to manage
exactly th
Erich Dollansky wrote:
Alex Zbyslaw wrote:
Erich Dollansky wrote:
Assuming I've understood your initial post correctly, then I do the
same, redirecting some dozen ad sites to a local web server. With a
this is how I started. Then friends did the same. We exchanged the
files. We added
Nikos Vassiliadis wrote:
On Wednesday 12 December 2007 04:06:01 Erich Dollansky wrote:
There's no clean solutions to getting different lookups per-user that
I
The clen solution is hosts.
But hosts is operating system-wide.
Both ipfw and pf support tables, which is what you
wa
On Wednesday 12 December 2007 10:05:28 Erich Dollansky wrote:
> The beauty is, Internet feels still faster then before.
>
> It has one advantage over all those ad removal tools. It filters what I
> do not like. It has nothing to do with censorship, it just gets rid of
> all the crap hanging around
Hi,
Nikos Vassiliadis wrote:
On Wednesday 12 December 2007 04:06:01 Erich Dollansky wrote:
There's no clean solutions to getting different lookups per-user that
Both ipfw and pf support tables, which is what you
I would like to avoid having a fire wall running on each machine.
Out of curi
On Wednesday 12 December 2007 04:06:01 Erich Dollansky wrote:
> > There's no clean solutions to getting different lookups per-user that
> > I
>
> The clen solution is hosts.
But hosts is operating system-wide.
Both ipfw and pf support tables, which is what you
want, large sets or unrelated (addre
Hi,
Alex Zbyslaw wrote:
Erich Dollansky wrote:
Assuming I've understood your initial post correctly, then I do the
same, redirecting some dozen ad sites to a local web server. With a
this is how I started. Then friends did the same. We exchanged the
files. We added hosts files from the I
Erich Dollansky wrote:
But new sites have new stuff I would like to be filtered out. To make
these experiences as rare as possible, I collect from friends and the
Internet hosts files to filter as much as possible.
This resulted in a pretty large file meanwhile.
But the Internet looks much m
://adblockplus.org/en/ works fine on Firefox. Easier to use and
more effective than 127.0.0.1 entries in /etc/hosts.
I do not even use Firefox.
hosts has the clear limit that stuff coming from the same site as the
text I want to read is still shown.
In general, it works fine.
But new sites have new
Firefox. Easier to use and
more effective than 127.0.0.1 entries in /etc/hosts.
-Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota USA
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send
And it just occured to me that you really
mean /etc/hosts.allow and not /etc/hosts...
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Hi,
Nikos Vassiliadis wrote:
On Tuesday 11 December 2007 05:18:40 Erich Dollansky wrote:
I use hosts for filtering all unwanted content on my personal machine.
That's not apparent. What are your filtering?
all the sites I personally do not want to see.
and how do your filter using
On Tuesday 11 December 2007 05:18:40 Erich Dollansky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wonder what the performance impact of the entries in /etc/hosts really
> is.
>
> What is your experience?
>
> Google tells me a lot of hosts running FreeBSD but I could not find
> anything rega
Hi,
I wonder what the performance impact of the entries in /etc/hosts really is.
What is your experience?
Google tells me a lot of hosts running FreeBSD but I could not find
anything regarding the hosts file itself.
I use hosts for filtering all unwanted content on my personal machine.
I
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:33:24 +
Pollywog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> in my hosts file, I have a line that looks like this:
>
> ::1localhost localhost.mydomain.com
>
>
> Is this line for IPv6 or is there some other reason for its
> presence? It causes occasional problems
On Wednesday 12 September 2007 16:10:54 Derek Ragona wrote:
>
> Are you running ipv6? If not just comment that line out.
I am not running ipv6 and I thought I did not need that line, so I have
commented it out.
thanks
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.or
At 11:08 AM 9/12/2007, Pollywog wrote:
On Wednesday 12 September 2007 15:47:15 Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> > in my hosts file, I have a line that looks like this:
> > ::1localhost localhost.mydomain.com
> >
> > Is this line for IPv6 or is there some other reason for its presence?
On Wednesday 12 September 2007 15:47:15 Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> > in my hosts file, I have a line that looks like this:
> > ::1localhost localhost.mydomain.com
> >
> > Is this line for IPv6 or is there some other reason for its presence? It
> > causes occasional problems, so I
in my hosts file, I have a line that looks like this:
::1localhost localhost.mydomain.com
Is this line for IPv6 or is there some other reason for its presence? It
causes occasional problems, so I commented it out and I kept a similar line
that points to 127.0.0.1
there sh
in my hosts file, I have a line that looks like this:
::1localhost localhost.mydomain.com
Is this line for IPv6 or is there some other reason for its presence? It
causes occasional problems, so I commented it out and I kept a similar line
that points to 127.0.0.1
An examp
file previous to FBSD v.6.
> >
> >apollo# cat /etc/hosts
> >#::1localhost.mydomain.com localhost
> >127.0.0.1 localhost.mydomain.com localhost
> >10.20.30.199apollo.mydomain.com apollo
> >10.20.30.199apo
; Derek Ragona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> At 03:48 PM 4/10/2007, L33T Networks wrote:
>>> What is the second line with 10.20.30.199, and the hostname ends in a
>>> period? I've never seen this in a host file previous to FBSD v.6.
>>>
>>
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 15:52:43 -0500
Derek Ragona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 03:48 PM 4/10/2007, L33T Networks wrote:
> >What is the second line with 10.20.30.199, and the hostname ends in a
> >period? I've never seen this in a host file previous to FBSD v.6.
>
Thats a FQDN (fully qualified domain name)
L33T Networks wrote:
What is the second line with 10.20.30.199, and the hostname ends in a
period? I've never seen this in a host file previous to FBSD v.6.
apollo# cat /etc/hosts
#::1localhost.mydomain.com localhost
127.
At 03:48 PM 4/10/2007, L33T Networks wrote:
What is the second line with 10.20.30.199, and the hostname ends in a
period? I've never seen this in a host file previous to FBSD v.6.
apollo# cat /etc/hosts
#::1localhost.mydomain.com localhost
127.
What is the second line with 10.20.30.199, and the hostname ends in a
period? I've never seen this in a host file previous to FBSD v.6.
apollo# cat /etc/hosts
#::1localhost.mydomain.com localhost
127.0.0.1 localhost.mydomain.com localhost
10.20.3
On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 09:24:59AM -0400, Ro BGCT wrote:
>
> I am new to FreeBSD and am wondering if someone couldt tell me how to
> properly set /etc/hosts. Right now it is:
>
> 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.my.domain
>
> It says to replace "my.domain" with the
Ro BGCT wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am new to FreeBSD and am wondering if someone couldt tell me how to
> properly set /etc/hosts. Right now it is:
>
> 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.my.domain
>
> It says to replace "my.domain" with the domain name of my machine.
Hello,
I am new to FreeBSD and am wondering if someone couldt tell me how to
properly set /etc/hosts. Right now it is:
127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.my.domain
It says to replace "my.domain" with the domain name of my machine. If
I am using this box remotely and its hostnam
eed to disable
> this, or make sure reverse look-ups work.
% man nsswitch.conf
Make sure /etc/nsswitch.conf lists "hosts: files dns" in that order to
search the /etc/hosts file before DNS.
--
David Kelly N4HHE, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
===
Josh Paetzel writes:
> Ok...That solved my hostname resolution issues. Now the next
> issue is why it takes ssh 60 seconds to give me a password
> prompt. I thought that was always caused by not having name
> resolution working. Any thoughts on this issue?
You may have solved one
le.example.org
> > Host example not found 3(NXDOMAIN)
> >
> > What am I doing wrong here that is keeping /etc/hosts from being
> > read?
Ok...That solved my hostname resolution issues. Now the next issue is
why it takes ssh 60 seconds to give me a password prompt. I thought
tha
shells: files
$ host example
Host example not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
"host" command always use DNS. try ping, telnet, whatever use IP
connections
$ host example.example.org
Host example not found 3(NXDOMAIN)
What am I doing wrong here that is keeping /etc/hosts from being read?
Josh Paetzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a stock 6.0-RELEASE box that doesn't seem to be
> reading /etc/hosts
>
> In /etc/hosts I have:
>
> 192.168.1.101 example example.example.org
>
> /etc/nsswitch.conf is stock:
>
> group: compat
> gro
I have a stock 6.0-RELEASE box that doesn't seem to be
reading /etc/hosts
In /etc/hosts I have:
192.168.1.101 example example.example.org
/etc/nsswitch.conf is stock:
group: compat
group_compat: nis
hosts: files dns
networks: files
passwd: compat
passwd_compat: nis
shells: files
$
it was said:
>It works if I ping 'hostname', but how can I find out the IP of
>'hostname' from the command line?
Hello,
Would not grep 'hostname' /etc/hosts do this?
HTH,
stheg
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2005-03-28, Emanuel Strobl scribbled these
curious markings:
> Is there one? Unfortunately I can't write one myself, at least not
> in a reasonable amount of time
- --cut--
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
use strict;
use Socket;
my $host = shift or die "us
Am Montag, 28. März 2005 08:23 schrieb Alexander Chamandy:
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 07:17:31 +0200, Emanuel Strobl
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > my testbed lacks of Ethernet Ports so one machine has no connection to my
> > DNS, no problem,
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 07:17:31 +0200, Emanuel Strobl
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> my testbed lacks of Ethernet Ports so one machine has no connection to my DNS,
> no problem, there is something called /etc/hosts I thought.
> It works if I ping 'hostname'
Dear all,
my testbed lacks of Ethernet Ports so one machine has no connection to my DNS,
no problem, there is something called /etc/hosts I thought.
It works if I ping 'hostname', but how can I find out the IP of 'hostname'
from the command line? dig and host want to co
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Nikolas Britton wrote:
> Oliver Fuchs wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >I am at the moment unsure about the localhost entries in my /etc/hosts.
> >From /usr/src/etc/hosts I have found this one:
> >
> ># Host Database
> >#
> >#
elow with the domainname of your
> > # machine.
> > #
> > #
> > ::1 localhost localhost.my.domain
> > 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.my.domain
> >
> > So my hostname is I.and.I so the /etc/hosts entry must be:
> > ::1
Oliver Fuchs wrote:
Hi,
I am at the moment unsure about the localhost entries in my /etc/hosts. From
/usr/src/etc/hosts I have found this one:
# Host Database
#
# This file should contain the addresses and aliases for local hosts that
# share this file. Replace 'my.domain' belo
localhost localhost.my.domain
> 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.my.domain
>
> So my hostname is I.and.I so the /etc/hosts entry must be:
> ::1 localhost localhost.and.I
> 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.and.I
>
> Now regarding
Hi,
I am at the moment unsure about the localhost entries in my /etc/hosts. From
/usr/src/etc/hosts I have found this one:
# Host Database
#
# This file should contain the addresses and aliases for local hosts that
# share this file. Replace 'my.domain' below with the domainna
Hi,
I am at the moment unsure about the localhost entries in my /etc/hosts. From
/usr/src/etc/hosts I have found this one:
# Host Database
#
# This file should contain the addresses and aliases for local hosts that
# share this file. Replace 'my.domain' below with the domainna
On Jul 26, Bill Moran wrote:
> That's an IPv6 entry.
>
> You may want to recompile your kernel without IPv6 support while you're at
> it. If you don't understand IPv6, removing support from the kernel can
> head off problems before they happen.
Ahh, yes. That's for the tip!
-Clint
--
Clint Ol
Its for ip6.
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, Clint Olsen wrote:
So, I just debugged a majorly annoying problem doing port forwarding with
SSH. Thanks to some creative Googling, I realized I had a weird entry in
my hosts file. What does this "::1" entry mean?
#::1localhost localhost.my.do
> So, I just debugged a majorly annoying problem doing port forwarding with
> SSH. Thanks to some creative Googling, I realized I had a weird entry in
> my hosts file. What does this "::1" entry mean?
>
> #::1 localhost localhost.my.domain
It's an entry for IPv6, and it is comme
Clint Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, I just debugged a majorly annoying problem doing port forwarding with
> SSH. Thanks to some creative Googling, I realized I had a weird entry in
> my hosts file. What does this "::1" entry mean?
>
> #::1 localhost localhost.my.domain
So, I just debugged a majorly annoying problem doing port forwarding with
SSH. Thanks to some creative Googling, I realized I had a weird entry in
my hosts file. What does this "::1" entry mean?
#::1localhost localhost.my.domain
-Clint
___
At Sun, 4 Jul 2004 it looks like David Fuchs composed:
> Excellent, ping does resolve a new entry in /etc/hosts properly. So as
> you said, `host' is doing it's own thing. The manpage for host gives me
> some leads which I'll follow through on.
Hmm, in the Unix b
resolve a new entry in /etc/hosts properly. So as
you said, `host' is doing it's own thing. The manpage for host gives me
some leads which I'll follow through on.
The latter. For example, many workstations aren't configured to run
named at all; they'll still refer
1 - 100 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
