Richard Welty wrote:
> er, no, not in the _DNS_ RFC. hostnames containing '_' are prohibited in a
> different RFC, and the context of that prohibition is restricted to SMTP.
Ah yes, not in the specific DNS RFC, my bad. 'Host related' RFC may
of been a better term. Maybe my confusion came from Vixie's view
of the RFC interpretation:
'Generally, for second level domains (i.e., something you would
get from InterNIC or from the US Domain Registrar and probably
other ISO 3166 country code TLDs), RFC 952 is thought to apply.
RFC 952 was about host names rather than domain names, but the
rules seemed good enough.'
Looking at the squid FAQ a distilled version of whats said there is:
Strictly speaking the RFC of final authority is RFC 1123 (as per
RFC 1720). Another RFC definition allows _ in certain records (RFC
1033). BUT it is not a required internet standard. Therefore 1123
takes precedent. It in turn, it states RFC 952, (hence I think
Vixies view).
Is it just MX records? I'm sure it extended to hosts, NS and A records?
Man it's too late to be reaeding rfc's :)
> > Of course the only hosts that seem to use them are Microsoft
> > based OSes. :(
>
> this is an artifact of the old non-TCP/IP M$ LAN support. back in those
> days, M$ actually taught their users that '_' in a hostname was good and
> '-' in a hostname was bad.
Why does this sound like a usual 'ignore the rest of the world,
and the standards people in it normally use, were microsoft!'
;-)
D.
