On Sun, 2006-09-17 at 15:48 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote: > You previously used the phrase "should be precisely like this". > However, "should" implies that it preferred but not mandatory, as in > "must". There is no indication in your suggested phrase change that > negative consequences would or could result upon failure to heed the > suggestion. > > Also, I would question the use of "should" and "precisely" in the same > sentence. > > Even then, I feel it is likely that some people will be convinced and > take the message literally and conclude the first line "must" read: > > 127.0.0.1 localhost.localdomain localhost > > and that is certainly not the case. I've seen numerous postings from people purporting that the 127.0.0.1 line *needs* to be that, and to not have any other things in it. Whether that's really true, I don't know. I've certainly seen PCs go doolally when it's not. And others report no problems with all sorts of tomfoolery in the line, but then some people "report no problems" with PCs that really are in a shocking state. How about: The hosts file should contain a line with the following details: 127.0.0.1 localhost.localdomain localhost In practicality, the .localdomain thing seems to be a Linux or Red Hat thing, other systems merely need 127.0.0.1 and localhost. There seem to be a few things presuming the localhost.localdomain thing, and some needing at least one dot in a hostname, so it'd be unwise not to include it. What happens when have something like Samba with default settings (i.e. no specific host details in the config file), responds to a broadcast query, when the machine's own hostname sits in the 127.0.0.1 line? Do we have something trying to use 127.0.0.1 as a LAN address? -- (Currently running FC4, occasionally trying FC5.) Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
