On Wed, Jul 23, 2008, 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.
We have been using djbdns for years on a variety of Linux platforms and
FreeBSD, largely because (a) security, (b) performance, and (c) ease of
use. Not everybody likes Dan Bernstein, but I figure he's somewhat of a
curmudgeon who designs good software.
As for not having it supported on CentOS, I really don't care about that as
the majority of the server software we use is built under the OpenPKG.org
portable packaging system, independent of the underlying OS vendor's
packaging system.
Bill
--
INTERNET: bill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
URL: http://www.celestial.com/ PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
Voice: (206) 236-1676 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820
Fax: (206) 232-9186
The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good
in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs,
or impede their efforts to obtain it. -- John Stuart Mill, 1859
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
