From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Feb 19 1:15:41 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from w250.z064001178.sjc-ca.dsl.cnc.net (w250.z064001178.sjc-ca.dsl.cnc.net [64.1.178.250]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3678237B503 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 01:15:38 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 46960 invoked by uid 1000); 19 Feb 2001 09:15:59 -0000 Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 01:15:37 -0800 From: Jos Backus To: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: DJBDNS vs. BIND Message-ID: <20010219011537.G56133@lizzy.bugworks.com> Reply-To: Jos Backus References: <200102190547.WAA12829@usr05.primenet.com> <3A90CA94.D7CBCB65@softweyr.com> <20010218233916.J28286@lizzy.bugworks.com> <20010218235023.A95040@dragon.nuxi.com> <20010219002634.J6641@fw.wintelcom.net> <20010219005845.C95040@dragon.nuxi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010219005845.C95040@dragon.nuxi.com>; from TrimYourCc@NUXI.com on Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 12:58:23AM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 12:58:23AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > The next major version of BIND is a complete re-write. So all the > auditors will have to start from scratch. So your argument doesn't hold > so well. Thank you. But I agree that the license issue is problematic. Meanwhile I have sent Dan e-mail asking him to think about changing djbdns in such a away that the patches to the port can go. That's a start. In my view this particular discussion should not be about products (BIND versus djbdns), it should be about how to provide DNS services on FreeBSD in the most secure and reliable way. -- Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/ "Modularity is not a hack." _/ _/ _/ -- D. J. Bernstein _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ josb@cncdsl.com _/_/ _/_/_/ use Std::Disclaimer; To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message