Bill Campbell wrote:
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.
I know Dan personally, and think I was there during some of the big
blowups (well the ones I was there for were big...). He definitely
had/has a problem with 'the in crowd', and decided to put his money
where his mouth was. I think most have benefited from this. Including
the 'in crowd'.
But I also know Vixie etal quite well and I stay with BIND.
Each to their own machinzations, IMNSHO.
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
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
