> You appear to want people to supply you with a new patch
Oh, THAT's what I wanted? Thanks SO much for clearing that up!
> ... and unless you are paying Vernon to support you he is under no obligation
> to respond
to you. ...
You can keep bloviating, but it still doesn't mean you have the
sli
In message
, pgndev writes:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > Why does the *need* to be info as the existing patches works other
> > than for the version file which for the fix by hand is pretty
> > obvious or you can just leave it as it is in 9.9.4-P2.
>
> The patch de
In message <8919443e-8f62-48cd-8da4-9c9632fc5...@kreme.com>, LuKreme writes:
> OK, I am getting this error "dumping master file: tmp-xxx: open:
> permission denied", occasionally, on both my slave DNS servers and I
> can't seem to fix it.
>
> The dns slave files are being written into /var/named/e
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> Why does the *need* to be info as the existing patches works other
> than for the version file which for the fix by hand is pretty
> obvious or you can just leave it as it is in 9.9.4-P2.
The patch devs have been silent on their site, and on
OK, I am getting this error "dumping master file: tmp-xxx: open: permission
denied", occasionally, on both my slave DNS servers and I can't seem to fix it.
The dns slave files are being written into /var/named/etc/namedb/slave which is
owned by bind
8 drwxr-xr-x 2 bind wheel 1024 Jan 13 19:4
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 04:44:22PM -0600, Lawrence K. Chen, P.Eng. wrote:
> Hmmm, from what I vaguely recall from my software engineering days, was
> that memcpy() didn't ever handle overlapped memory buffers and that you
> should consider memmove() in such cases.
Yes, that's correct, and in fact
Hmmm, from what I vaguely recall from my software engineering days, was
that memcpy() didn't ever handle overlapped memory buffers and that you
should consider memmove() in such cases.
Doesn't really make sense that it should, though I think I first learned
about this during a code review. Don't
On 01/13/14 03:43, Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article ,
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
>>> On Jan 11 2014, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
(2) There is no requirement that a domain name refer to the Web
site for that domain. I personally don't like that (for no special
reason), and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
http://www.five-ten-sg.com/mapper/bind contains links to the source
rpms, and build instructions.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAlLUTDoACgkQL6j7milTFsH5sgCfXRrP/D54ZM88CQnOQcNDTOPA
yZ0AoIdbMDJ96Ax05qH+H
Hello, Bind-Users Readers --
Since you are all subscribers to bind-announce as well [You are,
aren't you? It's where we make announcements about security
vulnerabilities and about new versions of BIND] you are probably
already aware that ISC has announced CVE-2014-0591, a vulnerability
which can
> On 1/10/14, 8:36 PM, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
> There seems to be a pile of misconceptions here.
Joseph,
1. No one from this list that answered to my original question actually showed
any degree of confusion, (including myself). There were only observations on
the subject, nothing more...
2. Al
> IIRC there's no syntax/feature difference.
Quickly attempting to use the existing, same named config that I've
been using with 9.9.4-rpz2+rl.13269.14 with a new build of 9.9.4-P2
release, 9.9.4-P2 refuses to boot. I've not (yet) gotten any farther
than that ...
... shouldn't be tough to figure
On 13/01/2014 17:27, pgndev wrote:
Can anyone clarify specifically the *diff* between rpz1, as in the
Bind9 release, and rpz2? Particularly, which specific
features/capabilities I need to unwind to get back to 'just' rpz1?
IIRC there's no syntax/feature difference. Rather, RPZ2 is a set of
(
We'd deployed named v9.9.4 with the patches from
BIND9 RRL and RPZ Patches
http://ss.vix.su/~vjs/rrlrpz.html
...
Multiple Zone Response Policy Zone (RPZ2) Speed Improvement
with Response Rate Limiting (RRL)
BIND9 9.9.4
file rpz2+rl-9.9.4.patch, version
On 13/01/14 01:16, Doug Barton wrote:
Howdy,
Without going into too much detail, doing some performance testing and
am seeing a weird result. On the same systems authoritative queries will
happily peg the CPU. However when running recursive queries (with a
small zone, all data cached before test
In article ,
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >On Jan 11 2014, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
> >>(2) There is no requirement that a domain name refer to the Web
> >>site for that domain. I personally don't like that (for no special
> >>reason), and neither apparently does the owner of this domain, who
Seems previously I made some mistake when tried to make writable
/var/named... Currently chmod g+w /var/named resolved the problem.
Thanks to all!
2014/1/13 Leonard Mills
> You previously showed your unsuccessful rndc command. It contained:
> 'type slave; file "slaves/zone.local";
>
> Un
On 12.01.14 17:16, Doug Barton wrote:
Without going into too much detail, doing some performance testing
and am seeing a weird result. On the same systems authoritative
queries will happily peg the CPU. However when running recursive
queries (with a small zone, all data cached before testing) t
You previously showed your unsuccessful rndc command. It contained:
'type slave; file "slaves/zone.local";
Unless you override the defaults, that says:
"use the file /var/named/slaves/zone.local".
So it appears that the directory /var/named/slaves was not writable.
Hth,
Len
On Su
On Jan 11 2014, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
(2) There is no requirement that a domain name refer to the Web
site for that domain. I personally don't like that (for no special
reason), and neither apparently does the owner of this domain, who
forces people to go to the trouble of typing in www.p3net.
In article ,
Blason R wrote:
Pertaining to the same discussion. Can someone validate below zone files
and named.conf files? What I wanted to achieve here is; I wanted to make
mail.example.com as my sub domain and give them A record so that I could
load balance the traffic on LBs since my LBs are
>Thanks for the response, but you're answering a different question than
>I asked. :) The question I'm interested in is, "Why is the recursive
>server not pegging the CPU?"
I should have quoted Sten's context. If the recursive answer
contains additional data, that may contributing to the
22 matches
Mail list logo
