Subj : Re: Which Format for the hosts File is Correct?
To   : comp.os.linux
From : HansF
Date : Mon Dec 06 2004 05:19 pm

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 17:24:48 +0100, Sybren Stuvel wrote:

> HansF enlightened us with:
>> ... and I still do not see any place that states that a canonical
>> host name is the same as a FQDN.  (It's not even in RFC 952, from
>> what I can tell.)
> 
> My dictionary describes "canonical" as "The usual or standard state or
> manner of something." I think in this case it means FQDN and
> "canonical host name" can be interpreted as the same.
> 
> Sybren

Thanks again.  

I do not wish to drag this out - I totally agree, and have used FQDN as
the canonical name since the early '90s.  I do note that the typical entry 

	127.0.0.1	localhost

is also a canonical entry that does not have a domain.

My point is simply - the OP did stated he could not find a definition of
'canonical_hostname' as used in the man page.  On following up, I could
not either, and was hoping someone else may have run across that.

/Hans

.