From owner-freebsd-doc Wed Jan 17 8:46:52 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Received: from spammie.svbug.com (unknown [198.79.110.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34C4537B402 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 08:46:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from spammie.svbug.com (localhost.mozie.org [127.0.0.1]) by spammie.svbug.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA03876; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 08:46:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jessem@spammie.svbug.com) Message-Id: <200101171646.IAA03876@spammie.svbug.com> Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 08:46:01 -0800 (PST) From: opentrax@email.com Reply-To: opentrax@email.com Subject: Re: docs/24364: I don't think so! To: csxbcs@comp.leeds.ac.uk Cc: dima@unixfreak.org, toor@nisser.com, freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <20010116205930.D5867@comp.leeds.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 16 Jan, Ben Smithurst wrote: > Dima Dorfman wrote: > >> It does, but it isn't very clear about it: >> >> >> # >> # named. It may be possible to run named in a sandbox, man security for >> # details. >> # >> named_enable="NO" # Run named, the DNS server (or NO). >> named_program="named" # path to named, if you want a different one. >> named_flags="" # Flags for named >> #named_flags="-u bind -g bind" # Flags for named >> >> >> The last line is an example of how to run it in a sandbox. > > Hmm, would this make it any clearer, do you think? > > named_enable="NO" # Run named, the DNS server (or NO). > named_program="named" # path to named, if you want a different one. > named_flags="" # Flags for named > #named_flags="-u bind -g bind" # Flags for named, if running in a sandbox. > > If not, please suggest something which would. :-) > Maybe, #named_flags="-u bind -g bind" # Flags for named, part of a sandbox. This way we suggest it is one component, not that it creates a sandbox. Needing Coffee, Jessem. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message