Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 01:15:37 -0800 From: Jos Backus <josb@cncdsl.com> To: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: DJBDNS vs. BIND Message-ID: <20010219011537.G56133@lizzy.bugworks.com> In-Reply-To: <20010219005845.C95040@dragon.nuxi.com>; from TrimYourCc@NUXI.com on Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 12:58:23AM -0800 References: <200102190547.WAA12829@usr05.primenet.com> <3A90CA94.D7CBCB65@softweyr.com> <20010218233916.J28286@lizzy.bugworks.com> <20010218235023.A95040@dragon.nuxi.com> <20010219002634.J6641@fw.wintelcom.net> <20010219005845.C95040@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 12:58:23AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> The next major version of BIND is a complete re-write. So all the
> auditors will have to start from scratch. So your argument doesn't hold
> so well.
Thank you.
But I agree that the license issue is problematic. Meanwhile I have sent Dan
e-mail asking him to think about changing djbdns in such a away that the
patches to the port can go. That's a start.
In my view this particular discussion should not be about products (BIND
versus djbdns), it should be about how to provide DNS services on FreeBSD in
the most secure and reliable way.
--
Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/ "Modularity is not a hack."
_/ _/ _/ -- D. J. Bernstein
_/ _/_/_/
_/ _/ _/ _/
josb@cncdsl.com _/_/ _/_/_/ use Std::Disclaimer;
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010219011537.G56133>