From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1HmUxD-00026B-UU for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 11 May 2007 13:14:40 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l4BDDNgu015699; Fri, 11 May 2007 13:13:23 GMT Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (py-out-1112.google.com [64.233.166.182]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l4BD8rx4010784 for ; Fri, 11 May 2007 13:08:54 GMT Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id a29so780085pyi for ; Fri, 11 May 2007 06:08:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; b=TTifs6SdfFPDi9vCbyozgvZ8DxL2CS3WMEHGUha3goGTtHGYDq4R0G5oyVnptds/7XTlefa9KkiIOIG/Fj+jYasyeyBsecz+pZb64x+c7H3hSprwadRU1fIrMXW2p1ZV2bymsJDN5MWz7gwraCvipNjny9KP1DmY7KebxFlxJ78= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; b=gnrTG2UvCR1bxGdbLFsOSO3qHDKCyLC2dnMH1l2ZNoqSj3Q5gATeSMfUItJVr0xezetHCbSBF7Vpui4YhSyGPnicOJcuVLqd8yXvhyjLkciPwxWw953QMxB/soZOOr58Jif1Kg6i111bX6Nssb8aSRlHqNucKwvV89dxJPzHJ7c= Received: by 10.35.52.18 with SMTP id e18mr2648718pyk.1178888933198; Fri, 11 May 2007 06:08:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kureyon.gremlins.biz ( [61.10.251.131]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id f77sm20422261pyh.2007.05.11.06.08.52; Fri, 11 May 2007 06:08:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Crayon Shin Chan To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} web/mail server as nameserver Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 21:07:58 +0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 References: <49bf44f10705101329l2b0a207cif8c2399ed99623ea@mail.gmail.com> <200705111428.46547.crayon.shin.chan.uk@gmail.com> <20070511104800.8660@gmx.net> In-Reply-To: <20070511104800.8660@gmx.net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200705112107.59206.crayon.shin.chan.uk@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: 003747d9-3a23-4c62-a8bb-37967fb26e70 X-Archives-Hash: 15bbdd9d6845e951901a29d70f40b251 On Friday 11 May 2007 18:48, jarry@gmx.net wrote: > Poor security of bind is imho similar superstition as it is > for sendmail: once in the past this software had some problem, > so now a lot of people think they should forever avoid using it... If the OP doesn't need any bind-specific feature then why not use djbdns which has a better security track record. djb software are built from the ground up to be secure (as is possible), he also splits the "program" into smaller executables, each having a specific job thus making each of them secure a simpler task. Whilst bind and sendmail have made substantial efforts to be more secure, they are still built on legacy and bloated monolithic code. -- Crayon -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list