At 02:49 PM 8/13/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Quoting Bill Parker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>>
>> Nod, I see a tarball for that stuff...have to download from isc.org,
>> since the tarball installs with root privledges, it should put every
>> thing in the right location (if my understanding of tarballs is any
Quoting Bill Parker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Aug 13 12:20:06 odie named[15412]: starting. named 4.9.3-BETA26 Sun Nov 26
> 2:58:49 CST 1995 ^Iroot@fuzzy:/tmp/bind-4.9.3-BETA26/named
> Aug 13 12:20:06 odie named[15412]: /etc/named.boot: No such file or directory
>
> Does anyone have any ideas, or do
I got my config from LDP - sunsite.unc.edu, linux documentation project,
look up the DNS HOWTO. It's pretty well documented.
I just printed it out and cut and pasted the files...
You may have to download the latest version of BIND (8.1.3??) to make it
work.
quite possible, here is the output f
Bill Parker wrote:
>
> ok, named is not currently running on my Linux box, and I have the ORA
> DNS/Bind Book, does it show how to set up a caching only DNS (for local
> stuff), or where should I look for this info?
The book is a great start. Also see the DNS How-To.
> Yeah, but when U
>
>Bill Parker wrote:
>>
>> At 11:07 AM 8/12/99 -0400, you wrote:
>> U, i'm a little confused here, I don't admin my own DNS (UUNET does
>> that for me), is there a difference between DNS and a caching nameserver?
>>
>
>No. DNS most likely runs as named (also called BIND) on your unix box.
At 11:07 AM 8/12/99 -0400, you wrote:
>James Raftery writes:
> > On Thu, Aug 12, 1999 at 02:15:17PM +0100, Simon Rae wrote:
> > > line traffic. Does this sound feasible? Is there anything I can do to
> > > remedy this apart from splash out extra cash on a line upgrade (assuming
> > > this is the
You can also run bind as non-root (e.g. nobody) and chrooted to its own
little partition. You can also prevent outside requests at the fire
wall by filtering on the ACK bit. It's not much of a security risk that
way.
Performance wise, always use forwarders if you are running a caching
only serv
On Thu, Aug 12, 1999 at 02:13:50PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Er... if it's handling a reasonably high volume of mail. If it's only
> churning out a message or two every ten minutes, I wouldn't bother; BIND
> is a huge memory hog and also a program that tends to have to be
> frequently upgraded
Ira Abramov writes:
> I think that definitely belongs in the tip section of qmail.org
Well, come to think of it, it's not always good advice. It should be
more accurately: "Always *consider* running BIND on your qmail host."
If you have a pile of front-end SMTP clients, it might actually be
mor
Russ Allbery writes:
> Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > *Always* run a nameserver on your qmail machine, even if it's
> > caching-only.
>
> Er... if it's handling a reasonably high volume of mail. If it's only
> churning out a message or two every ten minutes, I wouldn't
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> *Always* run a nameserver on your qmail machine, even if it's
> caching-only.
Er... if it's handling a reasonably high volume of mail. If it's only
churning out a message or two every ten minutes, I wouldn't bother; BIND
is a huge memory hog and also
I'm running BIND on the qmail box. It does the DNS for our LAN and
queries our ISP's servers for outgoing mail etc.
Simon
Russell Nelson wrote:
>
> James Raftery writes:
> > On Thu, Aug 12, 1999 at 02:15:17PM +0100, Simon Rae wrote:
> > > line traffic. Does this sound feasible? Is there anyth
James Raftery writes:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 1999 at 02:15:17PM +0100, Simon Rae wrote:
> > line traffic. Does this sound feasible? Is there anything I can do to
> > remedy this apart from splash out extra cash on a line upgrade (assuming
> > this is the problem)?
>
> You (c|s)hould run a namese
13 matches
Mail list logo
