On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:30:25 +0200
Jakob Schlyter ja...@openbsd.org wrote:
On 23 aug 2010, at 04.16, patrick keshishian wrote:
Is the idea to replace bind altogether from base? If so, my initial
searching shows NSD doesn't support caching nor views (although, my
googling skills suck). Are
On 2010/08/25 11:57, Gregory Edigarov wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:30:25 +0200
Jakob Schlyter ja...@openbsd.org wrote:
On 23 aug 2010, at 04.16, patrick keshishian wrote:
Is the idea to replace bind altogether from base? If so, my initial
searching shows NSD doesn't support caching
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 11:57:36AM +0300, Gregory Edigarov wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:30:25 +0200
Jakob Schlyter ja...@openbsd.org wrote:
On 23 aug 2010, at 04.16, patrick keshishian wrote:
Is the idea to replace bind altogether from base? If so, my initial
searching shows NSD
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 13:00:27 +0200
Henning Brauer lists-openbsdt...@bsws.de wrote:
* Gregory Edigarov g...@bestnet.kharkov.ua [2010-08-25 11:03]:
There is something I never understand: why change more for less?
i.e. why change bind which is feature reach and mature for
nsd/unbound, that
* Gregory Edigarov g...@bestnet.kharkov.ua [2010-08-25 15:54]:
why only nsd to the base, and not unbound?
hasn't been done yet. as simple as that.
neither has bind been removed yet.
--
Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org
BS Web Services, http://bsws.de
Full-Service ISP - Secure
On Wednesday 25 August 2010 09:50:48 Gregory Edigarov wrote:
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 13:00:27 +0200
Henning Brauer lists-openbsdt...@bsws.de wrote:
* Gregory Edigarov g...@bestnet.kharkov.ua [2010-08-25 11:03]:
There is something I never understand: why change more for less?
i.e. why change
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 2:46 AM, Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org
wrote:
On 2010/08/25 11:57, Gregory Edigarov wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:30:25 +0200
Jakob Schlyter ja...@openbsd.org wrote:
On 23 aug 2010, at 04.16, patrick keshishian wrote:
Is the idea to replace bind
hi,
I've just update the in-tree version of NSD to v3.2.6 and would really
appreciate some testing results on various platforms as well as feedback on
the default configuration.
The next step - if everything works nicely - is to enable NSD in the build and
remove the NSD port.
Note: zonec is
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 11:35:50AM +0200, Jakob Schlyter wrote:
hi,
Hello.
I've just update the in-tree version of NSD to v3.2.6 and would really
appreciate some testing results on various platforms as well as feedback on
the default configuration.
The next step - if everything works
On 23 aug 2010, at 04.16, patrick keshishian wrote:
Is the idea to replace bind altogether from base? If so, my initial
searching shows NSD doesn't support caching nor views (although, my googling
skills suck). Are these being considered?
The plan is that Unbound will be imported as a caching
10 matches
Mail list logo