From owner-freebsd-current  Thu Jan 27 16: 5:51 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from zippy.cdrom.com (zippy.cdrom.com [204.216.27.228])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 8EF7E158E1; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 16:05:49 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from jkh@zippy.cdrom.com)
Received: from zippy.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by zippy.cdrom.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA46149;
	Thu, 27 Jan 2000 16:06:31 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from jkh@zippy.cdrom.com)
To: obrien@FreeBSD.ORG
Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Problems installing FreeBSD 4.0 20000125-CURRENT 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:42:07 PST."
             <20000127144207.A81615@dragon.nuxi.com> 
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 16:06:31 -0800
Message-ID: <46146.949017991@zippy.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> IMHO, that is the wrong assumption.  Most DHCP servers I've seen aren't
> setup to provide hostnames to the requrestor.

Seems they're set up incorrectly then.  You can't be a good "network
citizen" these days without a resolvable hostname that also matches
your primary IP address or, among other things, you won't be able to
send mail directly to anyone who practices traditional spam filtering
techniques.

This also isn't just pedantry because, as I noted before, specifying
the hostname will currently cause it to override the DHCP hostname
value even if it is specified (as it certainly is on *my* DHCP server :-)
and result in broken behavior for the aformentioned mailers.  If we
were to fix that in our rc scripts, I could remove this assumption in
sysinstall in good conscience.

- Jordan


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message