> Okay so we will go for BIND. However I'd like to see BIND chrooted as
default in
> debian or at least have an easy option to. I think I'll contact the
package
> maintainer :-)
Better not...
read the documentation of the bind package, it's all documented why bind is
not chrooted by default.
quo
> Okay so we will go for BIND. However I'd like to see BIND chrooted as
default in
> debian or at least have an easy option to. I think I'll contact the
package
> maintainer :-)
Better not...
read the documentation of the bind package, it's all documented why bind is
not chrooted by default.
quo
eems
to be the only one that can actuaslly follow protocal AND adapt for the
other servers inability to.. There's a sizeable chunk of Bind deticated to
dealing with errors generated from both DJBDns and windows based DNS
servers (*shudder*)
Overall, Bind9 has given me the best performance
We are using bind since long time and we did not have any probs with that. The
bugfixes for the most systemservices are realy quick available for debian
imho.
Okay so we will go for BIND. However I'd like to see BIND chrooted as default in
debian or at least have an easy option to. I think I'll
eems
to be the only one that can actuaslly follow protocal AND adapt for the
other servers inability to.. There's a sizeable chunk of Bind deticated to
dealing with errors generated from both DJBDns and windows based DNS
servers (*shudder*)
Overall, Bind9 has given me the best performance
We are using bind since long time and we did not have any probs with that. The
bugfixes for the most systemservices are realy quick available for debian
imho.
Okay so we will go for BIND. However I'd like to see BIND chrooted as default in
debian or at least have an easy option to. I think I'll
hi all,
since we'll be using woody on our servers (finally moving away from red hat)
i've got a couple of questions:
1. currently we've for each ftp user 1 account on the box (disabled). using
vsftpd we could archive a real virtual user solution. i just have 1 question
regarding this: is it possi
hi all,
since we'll be using woody on our servers (finally moving away from red hat)
i've got a couple of questions:
1. currently we've for each ftp user 1 account on the box (disabled). using
vsftpd we could archive a real virtual user solution. i just have 1 question
regarding this: is it possi
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 02:38:56AM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
> Does multilog allow filtering log messages to determine which ones are worth
> logging to disk? That's the only feature that I'd like to see in syslog.
Yes, see http://cr.yp.to/daemontools/multilog.html (Selecting lines).
It's very
Hello!
Wow, man! this thread is already quite worn out. I love to read Craig
Sanders for some three mails about some topic, but then it get's boring,
Is there a tarpitting filter for Evolution somewhere?
El mar, 19-11-2002 a las 16:17, jernej horvat escribió:
...
>
> If only djb's sw would be
On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 23:35, Toni Mueller wrote:
> Like checking all the reverse-mapping hassle that's going on on
> the Internet. Most people don't do it right, no? Doing it right
> with BIND is work. Doing it right with djbdns comes for free
> if someone likes to delegate the reverse mapping to you
On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 22:58, Toni Mueller wrote:
> > LDAP or SQL backed DNS isn't an option unless performance is not
> > required. A LDAP or SQL query takes far longer than I want my DNS
> > lookups to take.
>
> Here I'd like to re-use the words of DJB: "Profile, don't speculate."
>
> Apart from th
[...]
TM> ... When I turned
TM> from BIND to djbdns, I discovered that I had several errors in
TM> my name server setup, despite the fact that I thought I had
TM> double-checked each time I messed with the server. [...]
Just out of curiosity, what kind of errors were these?
[
are
is a stupid thing to do, and that doing it the conservative way
requires sticking with BIND zone files, and you also brought
forward the same argument for inetd and syslog. I only extended
that to sendmail as well, which is also a piece of legacy software.
So I rephrase the questions: How do y
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 06:55:52PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 17:53, Toni Mueller wrote:
> > There is only one Unix way to use them (fortunately), and that's BIND.
> There is also nsd. I've spent about 10 minutes playing with nsd and it looks
> very promising, I've pu
so that no trojans can be popped into the source as we've
> been seeing much of recently, and DJB getting falsely blamed? Or is it
> another reason?
>
> --
> Matt Andreko
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff S Wheeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent:
. J. Bernstein
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DNS servers
The draconian license you use to distribute tinydns and other software
is problematic for me. I can accept different zone file syntax with
ease, and can even adapt myself to the notion that the filesytem is used
as a configuration databas
Sanders writes:
> the alleged documentation for tinydns-data is atrocious too, it's ALL
> done by example, no syntax definition, no overview.
In fact, http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/tinydns-data.html contains the syntax
definition, a bunch of examples, and a link to a tutorial page.
[ the tinydns data
On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 14:45, Johann Botha wrote:
> even though i did enjoy reading your message i think running the Buggy
> Internet Name Daemon is like kicking a dead whale down the beach.. not very
> productive.
>
> i like djbdns.
>
> the question is very simple: would'nt it be nice if nobody had t
The draconian license you use to distribute tinydns and other software
is problematic for me. I can accept different zone file syntax with
ease, and can even adapt myself to the notion that the filesytem is used
as a configuration database. I can also understand that your resistance
to a license
Before I will start defending Craig, I would like to point out that the
discussion is NOT just about taste. The boat left, and you weren't on
it. It's about how the software is build up, what is put in to the package,
and why the hell people have to think that they are better then the rest by
non-
Hi All,
I think this thread is becoming less a thread about which nameserver to
use and more people defending the time, money and effort they have
spent learning/writing the particular software package they use.
Of course nobody is going to instantly change their software package and
have to re-l
Hi Mr Craig >@2002.11.22_14:51:18_+0200
> > Sanders claims that I'm telling people to ignore the possibility of
>
> that's *Mr* Sanders to you, scumbag.
>
> i find your tone to be annoying and insulting, welcome to my killfile.
>
> that will be all.
LOL
e
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:43:50AM -, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> Sanders claims that I'm telling people to ignore the possibility of
that's *Mr* Sanders to you, scumbag.
i find your tone to be annoying and insulting, welcome to my killfile.
that will be all.
before you go, i'll take the tim
I just wanna add my 2c's here.
> We're discussing the example
>
>cd /service/tinydns/root
>./add-host lion.x.mil 1.2.3.4
>make
1) Why do you need to use /service?
2) Whats wrong with inetd ?
3) What prevents debian from packaging djbdns in your licence? I'm
reluctant to use djbdns bec
We're discussing the example
cd /service/tinydns/root
./add-host lion.x.mil 1.2.3.4
make
from http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/blurb/easeofuse.html. These commands will
automatically stop and display a message if there are any syntax errors,
disk-write errors, etc. (Of course, there won't be any s
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 03:14:19AM -0200, Adriano Nagelschmidt Rodrigues wrote:
> > /etc/{passwd,group,shadow} have fixed formats, with fields separated
> > by colons. parsing them is as easy as splitting on : characters.
>
> This is also true for the tinydns data format, no? It just has more
> t
Craig Sanders writes:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 12:22:43AM -0200, Adriano Nagelschmidt Rodrigues wrote:
> > About the tinydns data format that you dislike so much ("ugly,
> > difficult to read and a PITA to work with"), let me remember you that
> > traditional UNIX /etc/{passwd,group,shadow} files
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 12:22:43AM -0200, Adriano Nagelschmidt Rodrigues wrote:
> No one said that "your way of doing things is wrong".
actually, that is exactly what some did say. the typical response from
a DJB groupie to anyone who doesn't want to do things in DJB's way is to
utter some vari
Craig Sanders writes:
> overall, your argument is just a recapitulation of DJB's old favourite
> "your way of doing things is completely wrong, you must throw it all
> away and change to my One True Way". that may be enough to convince DJB
> groupies, but it's not enough to convince me. in fact,
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:00:07AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> there have been no arguments brought forward against the bind zonefile
> format. a few people have claimed that it sucks but without providing
> any reason or evidence. djbdns doesn't support it and djb doesn't like
> it - that m
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 06:13:15PM +0100, Toni Mueller wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 11:54:21AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 07:43:26PM -, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> > > Craig Sanders writes:
> > > > nobody with more than a handful of domains is going to throw everyt
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 01:37:32AM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
> Getting a home network to simulate a network that has 20,000 users
> logged on at the same time is extremely difficult.
yep. it's difficult to simulate heavy loads on a home network. it's
almost impossible to simulate the seemingly
On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 01:46, Nate Campi wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 01:37:32AM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > Getting a home network to simulate a network that has 20,000 users logged
> > on at the same time is extremely difficult.
>
> That's tough even with an "official" lab.
Exactly! This i
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 05:53:37PM +0100, Toni Mueller wrote:
> > I DO NOT WANT TO CONVERT MY ZONE FILES. I WANT TO USE THEM AS-IS.
>
> There is only one Unix way to use them (fortunately), and that's BIND.
no, there is at least one other unix nameserver that reads them. NSD.
http://www.nlnetl
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 01:37:32AM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
>
> Getting a home network to simulate a network that has 20,000 users logged on
> at the same time is extremely difficult.
That's tough even with an "official" lab. There's a little help in the
are
On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 00:34, Craig Sanders wrote:
> i've never had a dedicated server lab. i test things on my workstation
> and/or on other servers and/or on my own (as in my personal property)
> machines. e.g. i'll do R&D on most things on my home network before i
> implement it at work; or i'll
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 03:34:43PM -0800, Nate Campi wrote:
> The problem with the BIND zone file format is that it's hard for
> programs to parse.
so, what you're saying is that it's too difficult for a program to strip
out comments and blank lines, or to join continuation lines (e.g. SOA
records
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 07:56:30PM -, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> The ``DNS and BIND'' book repeatedly tells people to check their logs.
> Page 313 (3rd edition): ``Unless you [happen to see erroneous output
> or] scan your syslog file assiduously, you might never notice the
> syntax error!'' Page
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 06:55:52PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 17:53, Toni Mueller wrote:
> > Me too. So you've tested all things thoroughly in your lab, then
> > roll the change out. What's the problem?
>
> The problem for me is that I have only twice worked for compies whic
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:00:07AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> there have been no arguments brought forward against the bind zonefile
> format. a few people have claimed that it sucks but without providing
> any reason or evidence. djbdns doesn't support it and djb doesn't like
> it - that m
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 06:13:15PM +0100, Toni Mueller wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 11:54:21AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 07:43:26PM -, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> > > Craig Sanders writes:
> > > > nobody with more than a handful of domains is going to throw everyt
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 05:53:37PM +0100, Toni Mueller wrote:
> > I DO NOT WANT TO CONVERT MY ZONE FILES. I WANT TO USE THEM AS-IS.
>
> There is only one Unix way to use them (fortunately), and that's BIND.
no, there is at least one other unix nameserver that reads them. NSD.
http://www.nlnetl
The ``DNS and BIND'' book repeatedly tells people to check their logs.
Page 313 (3rd edition): ``Unless you [happen to see erroneous output or]
scan your syslog file assiduously, you might never notice the syntax
error!'' Page 80: ``Check the syslog file for error messages.''
So I put ``Look for e
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 10:55:26AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 11:27:35AM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote:
Gah. My sincerest apologies. I didn't realize until afterwards that the
reply was private-only, rather than CC'ed to me from the list, and thus
sent it back to the list. No
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 06:47:43PM +0100, ? ? wrote:
> Excuse me, but isn't this thread getting really stupid? I can't
> remember such a flamewar since a discussion about RBL and someone's
> blocked email messages.
>
> (what next, the 'which is the best text editor' flamewar ?:))) )
The ``DNS and BIND'' book repeatedly tells people to check their logs.
Page 313 (3rd edition): ``Unless you [happen to see erroneous output or]
scan your syslog file assiduously, you might never notice the syntax
error!'' Page 80: ``Check the syslog file for error messages.''
So I put ``Look for e
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 17:53, Toni Mueller wrote:
> > I DO NOT WANT TO CONVERT MY ZONE FILES. I WANT TO USE THEM AS-IS.
>
> There is only one Unix way to use them (fortunately), and that's BIND.
There is also nsd. I've spent about 10 minutes playing with nsd and it looks
very promising, I've put i
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 11:27:35AM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote:
>
> Well, I just remembered that Wietse Venema once posted to postfix-users
> talking about using ezmlm together with postfix. I then looked a bit
> around in the source of postfix and found this readme: QMQP_README. I'm
> including a
Excuse me, but isn't this thread getting really stupid? I can't
remember such a flamewar since a discussion about RBL and someone's
blocked email messages.
IMHO, everybody has something a lot more important to do, than to
participate in the latest (stupid,idiotic,etc) flamewar...
(what n
On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 05:53, Toni Mueller wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 01:42:14PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:55:41PM -0500, bda wrote:
> > > Whereas yours is entirely the usual "BIND RULES DJB SUX0RS!" variety.
> >
> > actually, if you bothered looking, you
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 11:54:21AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 07:43:26PM -, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> > Craig Sanders writes:
> > > nobody with more than a handful of domains is going to throw everything
> > > away and convert to a new nameserver program
> > Five
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 01:42:14PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:55:41PM -0500, bda wrote:
> > Whereas yours is entirely the usual "BIND RULES DJB SUX0RS!" variety.
> actually, if you bothered looking, you'd find that i've said "bind
> sucks" on numerous occasions.
Hello,
> I run bind9 and have never used djbdns.
Me to but it does sound interesting,
I will probaly try on a new project.
> > little bit of *your* free time to even learn the djbdns file format.
> > So, who's being the bully here? Who's trying to make everyone do it
> > their way? Hmm?
>
> y
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 10:55:26AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 11:27:35AM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote:
Gah. My sincerest apologies. I didn't realize until afterwards that the
reply was private-only, rather than CC'ed to me from the list, and thus
sent it back to the list. No
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 06:47:43PM +0100, ? ? wrote:
> Excuse me, but isn't this thread getting really stupid? I can't
> remember such a flamewar since a discussion about RBL and someone's
> blocked email messages.
>
> (what next, the 'which is the best text editor' flamewar ?:))) )
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 17:53, Toni Mueller wrote:
> > I DO NOT WANT TO CONVERT MY ZONE FILES. I WANT TO USE THEM AS-IS.
>
> There is only one Unix way to use them (fortunately), and that's BIND.
There is also nsd. I've spent about 10 minutes playing with nsd and it looks
very promising, I've put i
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 11:27:35AM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote:
>
> Well, I just remembered that Wietse Venema once posted to postfix-users
> talking about using ezmlm together with postfix. I then looked a bit
> around in the source of postfix and found this readme: QMQP_README. I'm
> including a
Excuse me, but isn't this thread getting really stupid? I can't
remember such a flamewar since a discussion about RBL and someone's
blocked email messages.
IMHO, everybody has something a lot more important to do, than to
participate in the latest (stupid,idiotic,etc) flamewar...
(what n
On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 05:53, Toni Mueller wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 01:42:14PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:55:41PM -0500, bda wrote:
> > > Whereas yours is entirely the usual "BIND RULES DJB SUX0RS!" variety.
> >
> > actually, if you bothered looking, you
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 11:54:21AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 07:43:26PM -, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> > Craig Sanders writes:
> > > nobody with more than a handful of domains is going to throw everything
> > > away and convert to a new nameserver program
> > Five
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 01:42:14PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:55:41PM -0500, bda wrote:
> > Whereas yours is entirely the usual "BIND RULES DJB SUX0RS!" variety.
> actually, if you bothered looking, you'd find that i've said "bind
> sucks" on numerous occasions.
Hello,
> I run bind9 and have never used djbdns.
Me to but it does sound interesting,
I will probaly try on a new project.
> > little bit of *your* free time to even learn the djbdns file format.
> > So, who's being the bully here? Who's trying to make everyone do it
> > their way? Hmm?
>
> y
Hello all,
Craig Sanders wrote:
btw, i have learnt the tinydns-data format. i know how it works, i can
read it and i can write it. i simply don't like it. i consider it to be
ugly and error-prone, so i don't use djbdns.
Thats one of the best opinions I read in this discussion. It shows very
much
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 02:10:19AM -0600, Cameron Moore wrote:
> OMG. I've been able to follow this thread without saying anything until
> now. Craig, you've turned into a troll.
actually, it's morons who can't interpret (or wilfully misinterpret)
plain english who have turned this thread into a
I see that you people are heavily arguing about compatibility between bind
zone files and djbdns'. Why don't you start a non-profit organisation for
standardizating zone files for nameservers and even config files. I see no
use in arguing which nameserver is the best, as long as you don't state you
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craig Sanders) [2002.11.21 00:10]:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 05:12:20AM -, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> > Craig Sanders writes:
> > [ http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/blurb/easeofuse.html ]
> > > 3. bind zonefiles are human readable. tinydns-data zonefiles are not.
> >
> > Let's try
Hello all,
Craig Sanders wrote:
btw, i have learnt the tinydns-data format. i know how it works, i can
read it and i can write it. i simply don't like it. i consider it to be
ugly and error-prone, so i don't use djbdns.
Thats one of the best opinions I read in this discussion. It shows very
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 02:10:19AM -0600, Cameron Moore wrote:
> OMG. I've been able to follow this thread without saying anything until
> now. Craig, you've turned into a troll.
actually, it's morons who can't interpret (or wilfully misinterpret)
plain english who have turned this thread into a
I see that you people are heavily arguing about compatibility between bind
zone files and djbdns'. Why don't you start a non-profit organisation for
standardizating zone files for nameservers and even config files. I see no
use in arguing which nameserver is the best, as long as you don't state you
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 05:12:20AM -, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> Craig Sanders writes:
>
> > 3. bind zonefiles are human readable. tinydns-data zonefiles are not.
>
> Let's try a simple example. I find
>
>=bear.heaven.af.mil:1.2.3.6
>@heaven.af.mil:1.2.3.4
>
> much easier to read tha
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craig Sanders) [2002.11.21 00:10]:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 05:12:20AM -, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> > Craig Sanders writes:
> > [ http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/blurb/easeofuse.html ]
> > > 3. bind zonefiles are human readable. tinydns-data zonefiles are not.
> >
> > Let's try
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 05:12:20AM -, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> Craig Sanders writes:
> [ http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/blurb/easeofuse.html ]
> > almost every bind solution ends with "Look for errors in your system's
> > logs." but not one of the djbdns solutions does the same
>
> What you fail to
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:55:41PM -0500, bda wrote:
> > > overall, your argument is just a recapitulation of DJB's old
> > > favourite "your way of doing things is completely wrong, you must
> > > throw it all away and change to my One True Way". that may be
> > > enough to convince DJB groupie
Craig Sanders writes:
[ http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/blurb/easeofuse.html ]
> almost every bind solution ends with "Look for errors in your system's
> logs." but not one of the djbdns solutions does the same
What you fail to realize is that djbdns puts the errors on your screen,
in response to the com
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 05:12:20AM -, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> Craig Sanders writes:
>
> > 3. bind zonefiles are human readable. tinydns-data zonefiles are not.
>
> Let's try a simple example. I find
>
>=bear.heaven.af.mil:1.2.3.6
>@heaven.af.mil:1.2.3.4
>
> much easier to read tha
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 05:12:20AM -, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> Craig Sanders writes:
> [ http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/blurb/easeofuse.html ]
> > almost every bind solution ends with "Look for errors in your system's
> > logs." but not one of the djbdns solutions does the same
>
> What you fail to
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:55:41PM -0500, bda wrote:
> > > overall, your argument is just a recapitulation of DJB's old
> > > favourite "your way of doing things is completely wrong, you must
> > > throw it all away and change to my One True Way". that may be
> > > enough to convince DJB groupie
Craig Sanders writes:
[ http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/blurb/easeofuse.html ]
> almost every bind solution ends with "Look for errors in your system's
> logs." but not one of the djbdns solutions does the same
What you fail to realize is that djbdns puts the errors on your screen,
in response to the com
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:55:41PM -0500, bda wrote:
> > overall, your argument is just a recapitulation of DJB's old
> > favourite "your way of doing things is completely wrong, you must
> > throw it all away and change to my One True Way". that may be
> > enough to convince DJB groupies, but it'
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:55:41PM -0500, bda wrote:
> > overall, your argument is just a recapitulation of DJB's old favourite
Ho-Hum... another djb flamewar.
Anything you post on this topic just duplicates what google can find all
over the place. Can we kill the redundancy and limit it to a lis
tarted making lots of sense.
At Cisco, they called this "scalability". Other people in the real world
call it "common sense".
I currently run two instances of tinydns on a webserver which is
eventually going to get a mate -- and at that point the secondary DNS
server will b
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 23:32, Toni Mueller wrote:
> > What security problems does syslogd have? It's performance generally
> > isn't a problem if you use the "-" option on some of the busy log files.
>
> For me, syslog foremost has a performance and reliability problem.
The main problem with syslog
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 05:03:21PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> Is there anything which will allow me to run ezmlm under another
> server, yet? It actually does what it does for very good reasons, IMO,
> and I like the way it does them (specifically, the same
> translation-of-concept for aliases that
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 07:43:26PM -, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> Craig Sanders writes:
> > nobody with more than a handful of domains is going to throw everything
> > away and convert to a new nameserver program
>
> Five of the top ten domain-hosting companies on the Internet---including
> Name
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:55:41PM -0500, bda wrote:
> > overall, your argument is just a recapitulation of DJB's old
> > favourite "your way of doing things is completely wrong, you must
> > throw it all away and change to my One True Way". that may be
> > enough to convince DJB groupies, but it'
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 05:03:21PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
>
> Is there anything which will allow me to run ezmlm under another server,
> yet? It actually does what it does for very good reasons, IMO, and I like
> the way it does them (specifically, the same translation-of-concept for
> aliases t
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:55:41PM -0500, bda wrote:
> > overall, your argument is just a recapitulation of DJB's old favourite
Ho-Hum... another djb flamewar.
Anything you post on this topic just duplicates what google can find all
over the place. Can we kill the redundancy and limit it to a lis
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 06:08:13PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
> Postfix does virtual domains in a different fashion to sendmail and
> allows you to use both the Sendmail method and the Postfix method in the
> same server. /etc/aliases is getting rather old but it works OK and it's
> good to have
tarted making lots of sense.
At Cisco, they called this "scalability". Other people in the real world
call it "common sense".
I currently run two instances of tinydns on a webserver which is
eventually going to get a mate -- and at that point the secondary DNS
server will b
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 23:32, Toni Mueller wrote:
> > What security problems does syslogd have? It's performance generally
> > isn't a problem if you use the "-" option on some of the busy log files.
>
> For me, syslog foremost has a performance and reliability problem.
The main problem with syslog
overall, your argument is just a recapitulation of DJB's old favourite
"your way of doing things is completely wrong, you must throw it all
away and change to my One True Way". that may be enough to convince DJB
groupies, but it's not enough to convince me. in fact, it pisses me off
and makes me
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 05:03:21PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> Is there anything which will allow me to run ezmlm under another
> server, yet? It actually does what it does for very good reasons, IMO,
> and I like the way it does them (specifically, the same
> translation-of-concept for aliases that
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 07:43:26PM -, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> Craig Sanders writes:
> > nobody with more than a handful of domains is going to throw everything
> > away and convert to a new nameserver program
>
> Five of the top ten domain-hosting companies on the Internet---including
> Name
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 06:08:13PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:51, Adriano Nagelschmidt Rodrigues wrote:
> > I think the idea here is to have a file format that can be easily updated
> > by scripts. For example, a script can monitor a cluster of web servers and
> > c
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 05:03:21PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
>
> Is there anything which will allow me to run ezmlm under another server,
> yet? It actually does what it does for very good reasons, IMO, and I like
> the way it does them (specifically, the same translation-of-concept for
> aliases t
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 06:08:13PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
> Postfix does virtual domains in a different fashion to sendmail and
> allows you to use both the Sendmail method and the Postfix method in the
> same server. /etc/aliases is getting rather old but it works OK and it's
> good to have
; translator, not a converter, but native support for the existing files.
I've said it already in private, and I feel compelled to repeat it in
public:
- Encoding the internal representation of DNS data in a standard, if
this really has been done, is a big design error for me.
DNS server
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 20 November 2002 20:43, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> Let's try a concrete example. With djbdns, to authorize clients with IP
> address 10.*, you touch /service/dnscache/root/ip/10. With BIND, you
> edit named.conf and add something to the all
overall, your argument is just a recapitulation of DJB's old favourite
"your way of doing things is completely wrong, you must throw it all
away and change to my One True Way". that may be enough to convince DJB
groupies, but it's not enough to convince me. in fact, it pisses me off
and makes me
1 - 100 of 147 matches
Mail list logo
