From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 4 19:13:03 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28C4D16A4CE for ; Sun, 4 Jul 2004 19:13:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from davidfuchs.ca (domains1.davidfuchs.ca [216.113.197.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 042E843D1D for ; Sun, 4 Jul 2004 19:13:03 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from david@davidfuchs.ca) Received: from s0106002078dbe870.vs.shawcable.net ([24.82.197.178] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by davidfuchs.ca with asmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1BhCQ6-000Omk-Qa; Sun, 04 Jul 2004 12:12:59 -0700 Message-ID: <40E856B9.30601@davidfuchs.ca> Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2004 12:12:57 -0700 From: David Fuchs User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040608 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kevin Stevens References: <40E62A8C.1040908@davidfuchs.ca> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [Fwd: /etc/hosts and /etc/host.conf confusion] X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2004 19:13:03 -0000 Kevin Stevens wrote: > > Try ping; even if the host isn't available you can see if it resolves. > "host" does it's own thing, which is sometimes non-obvious (to me at > least). Look at the sections in man host about the variables it expects > to be configured. > Excellent, ping does resolve a new entry in /etc/hosts properly. So as you said, `host' is doing it's own thing. The manpage for host gives me some leads which I'll follow through on. > The latter. For example, many workstations aren't configured to run > named at all; they'll still reference their local hosts file. > Perfect! It's good to know this, as the manpage doesn't specifically state that the system checks for a running named process - at least I didn't see that anywhere. Thanks for your help Kevin! -- Thanks, -David Fuchs