On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 02:17:59AM -0400, Kevin Darcy wrote:
> phn@icke-reklam.ipsec.nu wrote:
> >I don't see why underscores should be used AT ALL, there have been 
> >at various times problems, it _is_ against RFC. Why use something
> >that _might_ impare when other characters are available ??
> >
> Aesthetically, I don't particularly like underscores either, but lots of 
> folks do, and don't give a rat's ass about purely-theoretical 
> interoperability issues. And as long as the (internal or external) 
> customer is paying the bills, how am I, or any DNS admin, in a position 
> to say "no"?
I have to say that I like the idea of having a check-names option
available for those who want that kind of functionality.  Making the
default for check-names be "fail", though, is pretty lame.  It strikes
me as an instance of shoving one's big meaty opinion down everybody
else's throat.

We have production zones which contain underscored names.  We've asked,
encouraged, cajoled, and threatened, but our customers insist that there
are a few names for which underscores are required.  What's easier,
turning off check-names, or continuing to beat our heads against the
wall?  I have a good idea of what our choice will be when we put 9.3
into production.  I'll also note that I've spent more time dealing with
check-names just today (~10 minutes reading and opining about it) than
I've ever spent on problems caused by underscored names.  A default of
"fail" is not appropriate, in my ever so humble opinion.

-- 
Ed Schmollinger - schmolli@frozencrow.org

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBNJgfuUf1YjPlx/ARAvZYAJ9WHPY9s8MKarBhGHRDfISdDa6TZQCdHcJO
3UErgSfJVzd+kwjr03AbvqE=
=kA3O
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----