-On [20010804 04:30], Jun Kuriyama ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>Are there any reasons not to use "-u bind" flag for named by default?
Last time I discussed this with some people it was said that named will
have a fit if you change the interface's IP address. It apparantly
cannot accomodate for
Jun Kuriyama <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At Fri, 03 Aug 2001 19:50:24 -0700,
> Dima Dorfman wrote:
> > IIRC the last time this came up somebody said something about it not
> > being able to read zonefiles in some odd places where they like to put
> > them. I.e., they want it to run as root so t
>Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 19:50:24 -0700
>From: Dima Dorfman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Are there any reasons not to use "-u bind" flag for named by default?
>IIRC the last time this came up somebody said something about it not
>being able to read zonefiles in some odd places where they like to put
>t
Jun Kuriyama <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --Multipart_Sat_Aug__4_11:21:01_2001-1
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
>
> Are there any reasons not to use "-u bind" flag for named by default?
IIRC the last time this came up somebody said something about it not
being able to read zone
Are there any reasons not to use "-u bind" flag for named by default?
# Or importing code to use chroot from OpenBSD?
--
Jun Kuriyama <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> // IMG SRC, Inc.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> // FreeBSD Project
bind.diff
