Canonical?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Me
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Canonical?

Me
In the document at http://www.postfix.org/VIRTUAL_README.html, it uses the word "canonical" but it fails to give a definition.  I have always understood it to mean something that is in line with the standard or is orthodox.  When it comes to domain names, the standard is set by IANA and there is only one form.

However, the document goes on the differentiate between the "canonical" and so-called "hosted" domains.  Sadly it fails to realize that these must also be "canonical".

To make it even worse, it fails to explain that the host computer does not have to have a domain, or at least documentation never proves that it does.  Further, it goes on to bring in virtual and alias, just to confuse the issue even more.

So why are any domains any different than any others?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Canonical?

Ansgar Wiechers
On 2019-01-01 Me wrote:

> In the document at http://www.postfix.org/VIRTUAL_README.html, it uses
> the word "canonical" but it fails to give a definition.  I have always
> understood it to mean something that is in line with the standard or
> is orthodox.  When it comes to domain names, the standard is set by
> IANA and there is only one form.
>
> However, the document goes on the differentiate between the
> "canonical" and so-called "hosted" domains.  Sadly it fails to realize
> that these must also be "canonical".
>
> To make it even worse, it fails to explain that the host computer does
> not have to have a domain, or at least documentation never proves that
> it does.  Further, it goes on to bring in virtual and alias, just to
> confuse the issue even more.
>
> So why are any domains any different than any others?

I'm not sure if this answers your question, but from my understanding
the README is using the term "domain" in the sense of mail routing
destinations and how/where they are configured rather than the DNS sense
of the word.

Please double-check the "Canonical versus hosted versus other domains"
section of the document:

  http://www.postfix.org/VIRTUAL_README.html#canonical

Regards
Ansgar Wiechers
--
"Abstractions save us time working, but they don't save us time
learning."
--Joel Spolsky
Me
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Canonical?

Me
Thank you very much for that.  It is an interesting possibility and deserves consideration.

I wonder; if it was a destination thing, shouldn't the document have used the term "destination name"?  As soon as one uses the term "domain" in the context of networking, that comes with standard terminology and meaning.  Doesn't trying to merge that into something else damage the English language and the fundamental meanings we are trying to keep standardized?

Thanks again.




On 1/1/19 6:31 PM, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
On 2019-01-01 Me wrote:
In the document at http://www.postfix.org/VIRTUAL_README.html, it uses
the word "canonical" but it fails to give a definition.  I have always
understood it to mean something that is in line with the standard or
is orthodox.  When it comes to domain names, the standard is set by
IANA and there is only one form.

However, the document goes on the differentiate between the
"canonical" and so-called "hosted" domains.  Sadly it fails to realize
that these must also be "canonical".

To make it even worse, it fails to explain that the host computer does
not have to have a domain, or at least documentation never proves that
it does.  Further, it goes on to bring in virtual and alias, just to
confuse the issue even more.

So why are any domains any different than any others?
I'm not sure if this answers your question, but from my understanding
the README is using the term "domain" in the sense of mail routing
destinations and how/where they are configured rather than the DNS sense
of the word.

Please double-check the "Canonical versus hosted versus other domains"
section of the document:

  http://www.postfix.org/VIRTUAL_README.html#canonical

Regards
Ansgar Wiechers

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Canonical?

Dominic Raferd
On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 at 15:52, Me <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Thank you very much for that.  It is an interesting possibility and deserves consideration...

OT: please don't top post and please don't call yourself 'Me'. Some of
the rest of us (and our Gmail systems) think we are 'me' too, so it is
confusing.