From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 29 08:56:03 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CB0F16A4E1 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2006 08:56:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from babolo@cicuta.babolo.ru) Received: from ints.mail.pike.ru (ints.mail.pike.ru [85.30.199.194]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10E8443D5A for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2006 08:56:00 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from babolo@cicuta.babolo.ru) Received: (qmail 69700 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2006 08:55:58 -0000 Received: from cicuta.babolo.ru (85.30.224.245) by ints.mail.pike.ru with SMTP; 29 Aug 2006 08:55:58 -0000 Received: (nullmailer pid 7169 invoked by uid 136); Tue, 29 Aug 2006 08:57:46 -0000 X-ELM-OSV: (Our standard violations) hdr-charset=KOI8-R; no-hdr-encoding=1 In-Reply-To: <44F3429F.6050204@FreeBSD.org> To: Doug Barton Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 12:57:46 +0400 (MSD) From: .@babolo.ru X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL99b (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Message-Id: <1156841866.178399.7168.nullmailer@cicuta.babolo.ru> Cc: FreeBSD Net , Julian Elischer Subject: Re: possible patch for implementing split DNS X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 08:56:03 -0000 [ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ] > Julian Elischer wrote: > > I need some processes to look elsewhere for DNS information from where > > the rest of the system looks.. This patch seems to me a simple solution. > > We over-ride where the resolver looks for resolv.conf using an > > environment variable. This would allow me to reset this to an application > > specific config file that specifies a different server. > > > > Anyone got better ways fo doing this? > > Run the special processes in a jail with its own resolv.conf? My gut > reaction to your suggestion is negative, but I'm having a hard time > articulating a solid reason why. > > Perhaps if you described your problem in more detail, it would be easier to > work around it, but I can't help thinking that there are better ways to > solve this problem. I can describe another problem. shell computer for many groups of users, each of it want to use own "search" and probably "nameserver".