On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 17:37 -0500, Lanny Marcus wrote: > On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 2:27 PM, John Hinton <webmaster at ew3d.com> 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. Having watched that over *many* years, it has had a lot of non-technical issues surrounding it. There still remains a lot of antipathy towards it. I won't detail any of it here, it's available all over the web. > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djbdns> > I refused to use it when it first came out and I still find no compelling reason to move to it from well documented and supported packages, even if they do have problems. > <snip sig stuff> -- Bill