Subject: Re: switching from bind8 to bind9
To: None <>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
List: tech-net
Date: 11/17/2002 15:44:57
>> I consider the full "check-names" feature set quite critical [...]
> I wouldn't consider running a bind8 without removing that apalling
> idea.  [...]  If you want to check your zones for errors before
> loading them, which is a fine idea, do that outside of the
> nameserver.  [...]

Are you volunteering a checking program?  I certainly don't have any,
and I don't see what's wrong with bind including one just because it
happens to be integrated with the rest of the nameserver (which, I
note, allows you much higher confidence that a domain won't be
accidentally loaded without being checked).

> Then you can apply any checks that you like (including [...] - which
> are all much more common and likely errors than someone accidentally
> including a character that you don't happen to like).

What is your basis for saying they are "much more common and likely"?
Beacuse _you_ are more likely to make them?  I regularly see domains
knocking on my mailserver's door claiming names that contain characters
illegal for use in domains within SMTP; I see this far more often than
I see, for example, reverse DNS that appears to have lost its trailing
dot and gotten some zone name appended to it.

> Also, I see no signs of bind9 doing any of that nonsense, the error
> was realised, and corrected -

What is your basis for thinking that's _why_ bind9 doesn't do it?  It
seems at least as likely to me that they just haven't bothered yet.

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B