Re: .local vs.com
From: Joey (noone_at_nowhere.com)
Date: 07/13/04
- Next message: Mark Renoden [MSFT]: "Re: Explorer error on Win98 client with Server 2003"
- Previous message: Alexander Suhovey: "Re: Autologon woes"
- In reply to: Paul Banco: "Re: .local vs.com"
- Next in thread: Paul Banco: "Re: .local vs.com"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 17:18:09 -0700
These are ok, but the doc just tells you to use something other than
"example.com"... not example.local vs. local.example.com
I prefer local.example.com because it looks more "normal" should a
user ever encounter it, and because it really doesn't make any
difference if everything is configured properly.
It also makes more logical sense when you lay it out into child
domains, dmz's, etc.
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 16:51:06 -0400, "Paul Banco" <pbanco@ciban.com>
wrote:
>YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS.
>
>
>Thank you so much
>
>Paul
>
>"Tomasz Onyszko" <T.Onyszko_nospam_@w2k.pl> wrote in message
>news:cc1p4u$dc5$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>> Scott Harding - MS MVP wrote:
>>
>> > Are these what your looking for??
>> >
>> > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;254680
>> >
>> > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;285983
>> >
>> these two are good - I have to remember them
>>
>> --
>> Tomasz Onyszko [MVP]
>> T.Onyszko@w2k.pl
>> http://www.w2k.pl
>
- Next message: Mark Renoden [MSFT]: "Re: Explorer error on Win98 client with Server 2003"
- Previous message: Alexander Suhovey: "Re: Autologon woes"
- In reply to: Paul Banco: "Re: .local vs.com"
- Next in thread: Paul Banco: "Re: .local vs.com"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
