[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [leafnode-list] fqdn validation
Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> One is that it's not just a question of ever being able to understand -
> it's also a question of being able to present the required information
> in an understandable fashion and get a valid configuration back in a
> reasonable manner during installation. I could abort configuration and
> let people come back to it later or require people to do stuff
> themselves but that's kind of defeating the point of trying to help
> people out with the configuration.
Starting off as trying to help out and ending in articles lost does not
sound exactly helpful. You cannot drive unsuspecting users into the
"article not posted because of message-id clash" trap by just guessing
from the From: header or doing similar logic.
That's not going to work, users won't figure what's wrong, they don't
even get a clue where to look if they never get to see the
I may need to ask permission to translate one of the Message-ID FAQs
unless I find a good one.
> The other is that for most of these users Leafnode is functioning as a
> proxy providing offline cache services. It's got one upstream, one
> downstream and its only role in life is to add offline support to the
> client. It might be possible to have it act more like a full server but
> that's not the point. That's the kind of person for whom I'm trying to
> automate configuration.
Even for those users, the machine must be configured properly. When 5
networked applications start guessing the host name because the system
fails to configure one, you end up with 5 different results, each being
wrong in their own way, and inconsistent is what it is. The only
solution to this is to configure a proper host name in such a way that
it can always be qualified, even when off-line.
leafnode-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- mailing list for leafnode
To unsubscribe, send mail with "unsubscribe" in the subject to the list