Subj : Re: Which Format for the hosts File is Correct?
To   : comp.os.linux
From : David
Date : Mon Dec 06 2004 12:29 pm

HansF wrote:
> 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

FWIW  my hosts file shows the following

127.0.0.1	localhost.localdomain	localhost
69.xxx.xxx.xxx	my.FQDN.com		hostname

and so on.



-- 


================================================
   FindMoore.Net~Finding Your Place on the Web!
              http://findmoore.net
          Linux Registered User #188968
================================================

.