On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Craig White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 17:37 -0500, Lanny Marcus wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 2:27 PM, John Hinton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > OK, so does anybody have a good firewall rule solution for what we're >> > supposed to be doing with bind these days? Obviously port 53 is no longer >> > enough. >> >> Consider using djbdns instead of BIND. It sounds like an excellent >> alternative >> to BIND. > ---- > always seemed to be a bad idea to me. > > If the point is to use a supported/maintained package system like Red > Hat or CentOS, security updates are always applied through. > > When you go off packaging, you then become responsible for the software > from installation to maintenance. > > If you're going to use djbdns, why bother using CentOS?
Craig: What you wrote makes a lot of sense! Lanny _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
