Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:37:01 -0500 From: "Maxim Khitrov" <mkhitrov@gmail.com> To: "Kevin Kinsey" <kdk@daleco.biz> Cc: User Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Blocking undesirable domains using BIND Message-ID: <26ddd1750712272037x594336efndcd136ee2101e3e7@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <47744048.6020202@daleco.biz> References: <26ddd1750712271246j14795cf3wf8e9727f0f7cc148@mail.gmail.com> <47744048.6020202@daleco.biz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Dec 27, 2007 7:16 PM, Kevin Kinsey <kdk@daleco.biz> wrote: > Maxim Khitrov wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I'm currently setting up a new firewall for my home network using > > FreeBSD 7. The firewall will also act as our local name server > > (authoritative for the local domain, and caching for everything else). > > One of the things I'd like to do with it is use BIND to block various > > undesirable domains (ad servers, malicious sites, etc.). The plan is > > to have a separate BIND config file which is included in the main one. > > Just a question, and I'm not trying to cast doubt on your plan; I'm > curious why using BIND for this purpose instead of a proxy, which is > a more typical application as I understand it? > > Again, I'm not trying to convince you otherwise or say that using > BIND is a bad idea. It's just that I'm curious because we use > Squid for this sort of thing, and I was wondering why BIND instead? > > Kevin Kinsey I also need a local name server for my domain. That's the primary function, and this filtering stuff is just an added bonus. It'll also be nice to bypass the ISP name servers, which haven't been very reliable lately. - Max
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?26ddd1750712272037x594336efndcd136ee2101e3e7>