> On 22 Jul 2020, at 08:23, @lbutlr wrote:
>
> On 21 Jul 2020, at 06:37, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> On 21 Jul 2020, at 18:23, @lbutlr wrote:
>>>
>>> Bind is a poor choice for desktop use. Packages like unbound are much
>>> better for that sort of use, and it is fr less critical if those packag
On 21 Jul 2020, at 06:37, Mark Andrews wrote:
> On 21 Jul 2020, at 18:23, @lbutlr wrote:
>>
>> Bind is a poor choice for desktop use. Packages like unbound are much better
>> for that sort of use, and it is fr less critical if those packages have
>> security issues.
>
> Anything that talks to
>From what you posted, it appears when you query the recursive server NS1
(192.168.14.10), it returns no error, it gives back NXDOMAIN with the AD
flag. That would indicate DNSSEC worked. That does not match the log
messages you posted, that would indicate there's a DNSSEC validation error,
and you
> On 21 Jul 2020, at 18:23, @lbutlr wrote:
>
> On 20 Jul 2020, at 10:09, tale wrote:
>> And for what it's worth, not all systems moved away from "named" to
>> "bind9". I've been running FreeBSD for decades, and I can't remember
>> ever calling the service "bind9".
>
> The service is always
Am 20.07.20 um 19:45 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
> On 7/17/2020 11:35 AM, John W. Blue wrote:
>> Speaking about things to be annoyed over ..
>>
>> I am still ticked that FreeBSD dropped BIND from the distribution for
>> something called unwinding or whatever it is.
>>
>
> I'm not happy that happen
On 20 Jul 2020, at 10:09, tale wrote:
> And for what it's worth, not all systems moved away from "named" to
> "bind9". I've been running FreeBSD for decades, and I can't remember
> ever calling the service "bind9".
The service is always named, the package is bind. I stopped adding the 9 many
ye
6 matches
Mail list logo
