Users of RBL's

Chris Hammond chris at
Tue Jun 27 03:09:46 IST 2006

I looked at the site and think I will stick with bind for now but keep my
options open.

>>> "Glenn Steen" <glenn.steen at> 06/26/06 5:54 PM >>> 
On 26/06/06, Chris Hammond <chris at> wrote:
> >>> Matt Kettler <mkettler at evi-> 06/26/06 5:12 PM >>>
> >>Chris Hammond wrote:
> >>
> >> Understood.  What DNS server in most recommended?
> >Well, your choices are bind, djbdns, and microsoft.
> >I'm assuming you're using a unix box, so Microsoft is out. I'd also not call DNS
> >Microsoft's strong suit even if you have it arround. (heck, given the state of
> >NDIS 2-  5, I wouldn't call anything network-  oriented their strong suite).
> >Since djbdns splits resolving and authoritative servers into two separate tools
> >it might be a bit lighter weight than bind if you're running cache/forward only.
> >However, as long as you're not splitting hairs on the edge of system collapse
> >due to overload either should work fine.
> Ok, I am going to move to a later version of bind than what comes with CentOS
> 4 which is 9.2.4 and will see if the newer version performs better.  I have read
> alot of people complaining about binds speed.
> Thanks
> Chris
'If you feel like it, why not look at some of the alternatives here: ... Just a tad more
choice:- )
--  Glenn
email: glenn < dot > steen < at > gmail < dot > com
work: glenn < dot > steen < at > ap1 < dot > se
MailScanner mailing list
mailscanner at

Before posting, read

Support MailScanner development -  buy the book off the website! 

This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

More information about the MailScanner mailing list