Subject: Re: delay needed after started named?
To: Wolfgang S. Rupprecht <wolfgang+gnus20040504T122000@dailyplanet.dontspam.wsrcc.com>
From: Steven M. Bellovin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/04/2004 16:24:03
In message <email@example.com>, "Wolfgang S. Rupprecht
>> Hmm -- that's a thought, though it will make disconnected boots even
>> slower than they are today.
>Before my portable walked out my back door I used dhcpd as a
>on-network detector. If the main interface didn't look like it had a
>valid address I bypassed the startup for all sorts of daemons. The
>assumption was that I was most likely also on battery and didn't need
>to waste all that electricity on things that didn't matter.
I've tried things like that in the past, though rarely with
satisfactory results. I should revisit it, since I tend to do a lot of
^Cs at such times...
>> Btw, I don't see a -W option to host on 2.0beta or -current.
>Oh. I think this is a bind9-ism. My /usr/pkg/man is upstream of the
>normal one. Probably the default timeouts for the older 'host(1)' are
>(I figured you must be running bind9 since it has the startup problem
>in spades, as did bind-8.)
I am running bind9 -- I managed to check /usr/pkg/bin on the wrong
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb