Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 05:52:07 -0600 From: Tim <tim@sleepy.wojomedia.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: qmail (Was: Maintaining Access Control Lists ) Message-ID: <20020325115207.GA22032@sleepy.wojomedia.com> In-Reply-To: <3C9EFED0.DB176CB8@mindspring.com> References: <p05101505b8c430e28572@[10.0.1.9]> <000c01c1d3ab$6d2c6960$6600a8c0@penguin> <p05101509b8c47b17d088@[10.0.1.8]> <20020325015236.A97552@futuresouth.com> <p0510150eb8c48ba6b1f4@[10.0.1.8]> <3C9EFED0.DB176CB8@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thank you Terry. I appreciate your input on the matter as you actually provided information instead of random drivel. Brad could very much be right in the end. He just couldn't get past his DJB hatre to provide any real merits in his argument (like judging software base on ease of configuration and the size of the configuration file - what was that all about?). I am not surprised, however, about Dan's antics. I've observed his conversations since he was a graduate student at NYU. I do have a question though: > It was not > a problem to do the updates of the primary and secondary > seperately, following an update of the database from which > the domain data placed in the configuration files was derived, > since there is implicit fail-over support based on having a > hierarchical relationship between servers. With Dan's > arrangement, the secondary answering in the negative is cached > as authoritative, and the dmaon is off the air for at least > another 300 seconds (if not longer), as that's the minimum > default cache expiration time that most ISPs run on their > caching name servers. Can you explain this further? I've read it about 5 times and I am not sure I understand exactly. Tim To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020325115207.GA22032>