Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 00:41:29 +0100 From: Peter Maxwell <peter@allicient.co.uk> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bind in FreeBSD, security advisories Message-ID: <CA%2BaY-u4Whzmq9sBWY2asaVAWj8Hoku%2BBsh1vtOYtXjZiHZ8JXw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <2F6932C3-EF37-49FC-83EE-05512DD5A05C@digsys.bg> References: <CAO%2BPfDctepQY0mGH7H%2BgOSm4HJwhe-RCND%2BmxAArnRxpWiCsjg@mail.gmail.com> <CAFHbX1%2BJyHSPCccmf%2Bhk4C2b8wOcAUvxraFv7%2B04bNbbxbO33g@mail.gmail.com> <20130730.154208.41672901.sthaug@nethelp.no> <CA%2BaY-u7ynASeVdLaJkXDfccb2Jn-X1iqNa1Tw5tx=ino6%2BYdPA@mail.gmail.com> <51F7E292.90608@digsys.bg> <CA%2BaY-u4-%2Bj1sEqj4Bq3qcY9THK5yVr0UYVy2cHrfTQNeD0sAdQ@mail.gmail.com> <2F6932C3-EF37-49FC-83EE-05512DD5A05C@digsys.bg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 30 July 2013 21:03, Daniel Kalchev <daniel@digsys.bg> wrote: > > On 30.07.2013, at 19:49, Peter Maxwell <peter@allicient.co.uk> wrote: > > > I personally prefer qmail over sendmail > > but I wouldn't suggest qmail should be in base for the reason that > sendmail > > is the de facto standard on *nix shaped systems. > > > > One can argue that BIND is the de facto standard on *nix shaped systems too Yes, that is precisely my point, the preceding sentences to what you quoted... "That's not a good idea: any environment larger than a home network or SME that relies on bind will not find it easy to migrate. It's one thing asking people to tolerate a 2min inconvenience to make a choice to install bind from ports (when they've can also choose bind or, say, djbdns, etc), it's quite another to suggest to them they should be using different software, essentially on a whim."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CA%2BaY-u4Whzmq9sBWY2asaVAWj8Hoku%2BBsh1vtOYtXjZiHZ8JXw>