On Oct 19, 2012, at 6:22 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: > On Oct 19, 2012, at 9:17 PM, "Michael Hoskins (michoski)" > <micho...@cisco.com> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >>> On Oct 19, 2012, at 6:13 PM, Alan Clegg <a...@clegg.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Oct 18, 2012, at 1:13 PM, Chris Thompson <c...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Oct 18 2012, Jeremy C. Reed wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012, Jack Tavares wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I am running bind9.8.x built from source and I see this message in >>>>>>> the logs >>>>>>> built with '--prefix=/blah' '--sbindir=/blah' '--sysconfdir=/blah' >>>>>>> '--localstatedir=/var' '--exec-prefix=/usr' '--libdir=/usr/lib' >>>>>>> '--mandir=/usr/share/man' '--with-openssl=/blah' >>>>>>> '--enable-fixed-rrset' '--enable-shared' '--enable-threads' >>>>>>> '--enable-ipv6' '--with-libtool' etc etc etc I would prefer to not >>>>>>> have that show up in the log. >>>>>>> Short of modifying the source, is there an easy way to disable that? >>>>>> >>>>>> No way to disable just it. It is in the "general" catch-all category. >>>>> >>>>> Also, it is output before the configuration "logging" directives have >>>>> been >>>>> processed, so it comes out with the internal defaults for category and >>>>> priority (daemon.notice). Any suppression would need to be done at the >>>>> syslog level. >>>>> >>>>> But I have some difficulty understanding why anyone would want it >>>>> suppressed. >>>>> It's true that BIND is a bit noisier than it used to be at this stage, >>>>> but >>>>> can this really be a problem? Do you let the black hats see your >>>>> system logs? >>>> >>>> >>>> This message was added by general recognition that being able to >>>> rebuild a "drop-in" binary for BIND when you didn't have access to the >>>> build directory (where the config.log contains the information) was a >>>> good thing. >>> >>> Yah, a very good thingŠ This has been really really useful to me on a >>> number of occasionsŠ >>> >>>> >>>> I, for one, see no reason to suppress this message (but I do have blind >>>> spots at times). >>> >>> Me neither, but I am interested why folk might want toŠ >> >> Maybe it's viewed as information disclosure? > > Ah, that's a good point, especially if BIND is being incorporated into an > appliance / black box and there is no need for the users of the appliance to > know what all goes on under the hood?
An an employee of the maker of an appliance solution, I can say that we gladly tell our customers what's going on under the hood. If we didn't, they wouldn't trust us. Chris Buxton BlueCat Networks _______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
