On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 11:40:56PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Jeff King wrote: > > > Even if it worked, though, I am not sure it would be worth such a rule. > > The /etc/mailname file is not a standard, so you would effectively be > > cutting off the auto-ident behavior for people on every other system. If > > we are going to do that, we might as well do it uniformly. > > I don't fully follow. Do you mean that because other operating > systems choose not to make full use of an /etc/mailname file when it > is present (and instead use per-MTA configuration), git should not > take advantage of it to choose an appropriate email address? > > Or do you mean that on non-Debian systems, the FQDN for localhost is > reliably the mailname, just like on Debian systems /etc/mailname is > supposed to be? Sorry to be unclear. I meant that treating /etc/mailname and gethostname differently might be justified on Debian under the logic "if you have /etc/mailname, that is a trustworthy address, and if you do not, then we cannot guess at a trustworthy address (because putting it in /etc/mailname is the accepted way to do so on Debian)". But such logic would not extend to other operating systems, where /etc/mailname does not have such a status. I am guessing, too, about what people even put in /etc/mailname. If they relay mail from the machine to a smarthost, do they put the individual hostname into /etc/mailname? Or do they put in the domain name that represents a real deliverable address? If the former, then it is no better than gethostname anyway. -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html