> On 03/05/13 18:58, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > On 2013/03/05 18:31, Alexander Hall wrote: > >> Not that I mind either way, but did we want to add more "hardcoded" > >> flags to whois? > > > > Did you any some others in mind? Most of the domain-lookup ones are handled > > by XX.whois-servers.net, of the others I know of Team Cymru's servers may be > > useful but I don't think they're as widely used as peeringdb, probably not > > common enough to be worth adding a flag for. > > Oh, well, no. My point was rather the opposite. > > Adding a hardcoded switch for a new server every now and then seems like > a good waste of switchable characters. But I'm quite a limited user of > whois, so maybe it makes sense.
Adding a new option to whois hurts noone. This is not a standardized portable interface. Adding them here does not hurt you like it would for cp, ls, ksh, traceroute, ping, route, bgpd [trying to get you to guess whereabouts whois fits on that line].
