From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Feb 16 10:51:29 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B218216A418; Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:51:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (tim.des.no [194.63.250.121]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B11013C447; Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:51:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spam.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F7C9208C; Sat, 16 Feb 2008 11:51:26 +0100 (CET) X-Spam-Tests: AWL X-Spam-Learn: disabled X-Spam-Score: -0.3/3.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.4 (2008-01-01) on tim.des.no Received: from ds4.des.no (des.no [80.203.243.180]) by smtp.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B08A2088; Sat, 16 Feb 2008 11:51:26 +0100 (CET) Received: by ds4.des.no (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 160028449D; Sat, 16 Feb 2008 11:51:26 +0100 (CET) From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= To: "M. Warner Losh" References: <200802160016.m1G0GnFB046558@repoman.freebsd.org> <20080216024541.GA31498@nagual.pp.ru> <20080215.233427.1598351542.imp@bsdimp.com> Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 11:51:26 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20080215.233427.1598351542.imp@bsdimp.com> (M. Warner Losh's message of "Fri\, 15 Feb 2008 23\:34\:27 -0700 \(MST\)") Message-ID: <863artw4wh.fsf@ds4.des.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/22.1 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: ache@nagual.pp.ru, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, delphij@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/resolv res_comp.c X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:51:29 -0000 "M. Warner Losh" writes: > Plus there was a very long, very heated thread about removing _ as a > valid name years ago. Have conditions changed since then? Frankly, > I'd like to have seen a change like this discussed more widely. There > was much debate before, and there turned out to be good reasons for > omitting the _. I just can't recall them now. There are valid reasons for allowing it. Somebody[tm] (I'll leave it up to you to guess who) thought it was a good idea to use _ in DNS names used for automatic detection of web proxies and domain controllers, IIRC. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no