# DNS -- plain vanilla dns please.

Fred Swartz (fred.swartz@umich.edu)
Fri, 29 Oct 1993 21:59:15 -0400

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Rob Raisch, The Internet Company: "Re: Single protocol for UR*?"
- Previous message: Mitra: "Re: Single protocol for UR*?"
- In reply to: Mitra: "Re: Single protocol for UR*?"
- Next in thread: John C Klensin: "Re: DNS -- plain vanilla dns please."
- Reply: John C Klensin: "Re: DNS -- plain vanilla dns please."

    Message-Id: <9310300159.AA16229@merit.edu>

    To: mitra@path.net (Mitra), peterd@bunyip.com

    From: "Fred Swartz" <fred.swartz@umich.edu>

    Subject: DNS -- plain vanilla dns please.

    In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 29 Oct 1993 13:38:24 PDT."

                 <9310291338.aa10437@pandora.sf.ca.us>

    Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1993 21:59:15 -0400

> From: mitra@path.net (Mitra)
...
>The advantage of NOT adding another DNS record, is that people dont have
>to implement DNS - or obtain libraries that do - in order to get to the
>whois++ server. They can do it all with a single "gethostbyname" call.

Please do NOT add another DNS record. Mitra's right.

-- Fred (fred.swartz@merit.edu)

- Next message: Rob Raisch, The Internet Company: "Re: Single protocol for UR*?"
- Previous message: Mitra: "Re: Single protocol for UR*?"
- In reply to: Mitra: "Re: Single protocol for UR*?"
- Next in thread: John C Klensin: "Re: DNS -- plain vanilla dns please."
- Reply: John C Klensin: "Re: DNS -- plain vanilla dns please."