14 QP5P2QP0P;Q 2012, 14:31 P>Q Oliver Peter <li...@peter.de.com>: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 01:23:01PM +0400, Mo Libden wrote: > > 14 QP5P2QP0P;Q 2012, 12:59 P>Q Gregory Edigarov <g...@bestnet.kharkov.ua>: > > > On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:09:16 +0000 > > > Peter van Oord van der Vlies <peter.vanoordvandervl...@itisit.nl> wrote: > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > Why replacing bind ? > > > > > > Because bind is full of security related bugs and a bloatware. > > > > Oh come on! > > They say about the same thing about sendmail for years (decades already?). > > Still it is in the base. > > smtpd(8) is underway. Also there is no proper MTA implementation out > there served under the BSD license (i.e. Postfix has IBM license).
good thing it is. i see lotsa commits, but after years it still seems to be not ready to replace the sendmail, so it's good to hear it's still gonna be the replacement. like with opencvs and pcc. i see things slow down sometimes. > Unbound (and also nsd) is a good and lightweight alternative to > sendmail using the BSD license. License stuff is more important than > it sounds. "to sendmail"? i guess you meant "BIND" here. and i know the concerns with the licenses, which is what i love in OpenBSD. > IMO the separate development of a resolver (unbound) and an authoritive > nameserver (nsd) is better than having all functionality within one > server (named). this sounds very reasonable. i don't need auth NS myself in most of my installations. add here bits answered earlier (10 goes for python etc.) and now it's clear. it's just that the captain's answer wasn't that obvious. sounded like classical FUD :-)
