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.
Having watched that over *many* years, it has had a lot of non-technical
issues surrounding it. There still remains a lot of antipathy towards
it. I won't detail any of it here, it's available all over the web.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djbdns>
>
I refused to use it when it first came out and I still find no
compelling reason to move to it from well documented and supported
packages, even if they do have problems.
> <snip sig stuff>
--
Bill
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
