Hi all,
I'm afraid I have to post a slight correction! It's not so easy to change, but as Eddy wrote, it's possible if you're willing to modify the templates.
First, let's go back to Jim's question:
> Is there an easy way to remove the "e-smith" portion
> from the server names. I was showing the server to a potential
> customer, and the question came up.
If your domain is "joe.com" then your Internet provider should publish DNS records such as "
www.joe.com" pointing to your e-smith server.
In e-smith 3.1 and before, the DNS configuration was caching-only. So until your ISP published the DNS records, you had to refer to your e-smith server by numeric IP address such as "192.168.1.1". After your ISP published the records, you could use "
www.joe.com".
In early versions of e-smith 4.0 we made an improvement; e-smith published it's own zone files for "joe.com". So on the local network, "
www.joe.com" would start working immediately and refer to the e-smith server. For the outside world, the name "
www.joe.com" would start working as soon as the ISP published the names.
Then we realized that there was a problem. Some sites were using externally hosted web sites, so their ISP would publish "mail.joe.com" to point to the e-smith server but would publish "
www.joe.com" to point to the ISP's web hosting service. In these cases, the web site would be invisible to the local network, because the name "
www.joe.com" would be shadowed by the e-smith server.
So we came up with a compromise. If your domain is "joe.com", then e-smith 4.0 now publishes:
www.e-smith.joe.comftp.e-smith.joe.com
etc. to point to the e-smith server. These names will work immediately after installation, so you never have to use numeric IP addresses. Then your ISP still has to publish:
www.joe.comftp.joe.com
etc. And as soon as your ISP does this, those names should work too, just like in e-smith 3.1. And with the new design, if the ISP publishes an alternate IP address for
www.joe.com, it is not shadowed by the e-smith server.
We are still reviewing this, and may change it in the next version of e-smith. The new scheme is confusing to many of our users, and isn't a perfect solution. But it's definitely an improvement over e-smith 3.1.
Best regards,
- Joe Morrison