In message <25955.981530724@coconut.itojun.org>
	on Wed, 07 Feb 2001 16:25:24 +0900,
	itojun@iijlab.net wrote:
> 	the fix matters (as far as I understand) only when you reconfigure
> 	forwarders setting too many times with SIGHUP.  it won't be tickled
> 	just by using forwarders.  yup, it may need to be pulled in, but
> 	it is not that severe.
But normaly, named process would run long term and would be
reconfigured several (or many) times.  So, I think that named process
using forwarders would crash at some time.  If it is correct, then
it's better to fix known problem, isnt't it?

--
Takahiro Kambe <taca@sky.yamashina.kyoto.jp>