Re: Should we drop the fully qualified server name requirement?

> Ah, I see. We already have a visible host name option for that and it
> accepts non-FQDNs, right? I agree that this requirement is rather
> idealistic, but I would like to hear why Kinkie would prefer to keep it.

Two main reasons:
- it's an already-existing rule
- it's a minor stumbling block for unexperienced administrators so
that there's a higher chance that they'll at least LOOK at the
configuration file before starting a proxy up.

-- 
    /kinkie