On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Craig White <craigwhite@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 17:37 -0500, Lanny Marcus wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 2:27 PM, John Hinton <webmaster@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > OK, so does anybody have a good firewall rule solution for what we're
>> > supposed to be doing with bind these days? Obviously port 53 is no longer
>> > enough.
>>
>> Consider using djbdns instead of BIND. It sounds like an excellent alternative
>> to BIND.
> ----
> always seemed to be a bad idea to me.
>
> If the point is to use a supported/maintained package system like Red
> Hat or CentOS, security updates are always applied through.
>
> When you go off packaging, you then become responsible for the software
> from installation to maintenance.
>
> If you're going to use djbdns, why bother using CentOS?
Craig: What you wrote makes a lot of sense! Lanny
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
