From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/35789 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Bjørn Mork" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Quimby Upgrade Date: 13 Apr 2001 21:07:03 +0200 Organization: DoD Message-ID: References: <20010410162812.7343.qmail@nightshade.la.mastaler.com> <87g0fg56fb.fsf@inanna.rimspace.net> <20010411052354.D46053@kens.com> <87g0fepwkn.fsf@inanna.rimspace.net> <87puehegxr.fsf@inanna.rimspace.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035171472 4894 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 03:37:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 03:37:52 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: (qmail 27810 invoked by alias); 13 Apr 2001 19:07:09 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 27805 invoked from network); 13 Apr 2001 19:07:08 -0000 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org (195.204.10.139) by gnus.org with SMTP; 13 Apr 2001 19:07:08 -0000 Original-Received: (from news@localhost) by quimby.gnus.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA00040 for ding@gnus.org; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 21:07:08 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: ding@gnus.org Original-Path: not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: gnus.ding Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: ti30a21-0039.dialup.online.no Original-X-Trace: quimby.gnus.org 987188827 30051 130.67.149.39 (13 Apr 2001 19:07:07 GMT) Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@quimby.gnus.org Original-NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Apr 2001 19:07:07 GMT User-Agent: Gnus/5.090001 (Oort Gnus v0.01) Emacs/20.7 Original-Lines: 42 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:35789 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:35789 Daniel Pittman writes: > On 12 Apr 2001, Bjørn Mork wrote: > > Daniel Pittman writes: > >> On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Robin S. Socha wrote: > >> > >> > At least OpenBSD ships with BIND 4. > >> > >> Which has it's bonus points... and it's own suckages. Admittedly, > >> though, it's not /nearly/ as bad as Bind 8 (on 9, given the number of > >> bug reports I have seen so far). > > Ahem. That should have been /or/ 9. :) I kind of guessed that, hence my comment below :-) > > You should probably get an appointment with an eye specialist. > > Unless it's the typo which, admittedly, looks silly... Bind4 seems to > have less day-to-day breakages than 8 or 9. It lacks *many* newer > features, though, which some sites need. > > I don't quite follow what you meant, though. > Daniel I just couldn't see why you included bind 9 in this. Bind 9 is a completely new DNS package which has only the name in common with earlier bind versions. There hasn't been a single security related bug in bind 9 yet, has there? But, unlike bind 4 and 8, developers are still working on bind 9 so you will of course see *small* bug fixes all the time. I still don't think it makes much sense comparing active development with the critical fixes necessary on bind 4 and 8. Bind 4 and bind 8 are based on the same code and share many of the same security flaws. Some of which have only recently been discovered, as I am sure you are all aware of. Stating that bind 4 isn't nearly as bad as bind 9 just doesn't make any sense at all. Bind 4 is as bad as bind 8, and that's *really* bad. Bjørn