Proposal: Seperate windows-bind-users list
bobvance at alumni.caltech.edu
Mon Mar 26 14:34:27 UTC 2001
I agree -- no separate list.
Currently, I'm not interested in the Windows port, per se, and simply
make a cursory scan and quick delete. But, hopefully, some of the info
is seeping in at a low level, especially about Win2K's DNS
implementation and interaction and will be useful when I *do* have a
need to get more interested in it :)
Tks | <mailto:BVance at sbm.com>
BV | <mailto:BobVance at alumni.caltech.edu>
Sr. Technical Consultant, SBM, A Gates/Arrow Co.
Vox 770-623-3430 11455 Lakefield Dr.
Fax 770-623-3429 Duluth, GA 30097-1511
From: bind-users-bounce at isc.org [mailto:bind-users-bounce at isc.org]On
Behalf Of Danny Mayer
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 10:51 PM
To: Doug Barton; bind-users at isc.org
Subject: Re: Proposal: Seperate windows-bind-users list
This is a bad idea. There is almost no traffic concerning bind
There's lots of traffic concerning Win2K systems sending updates to the
However, those nameservers are almost invariably running on Solaris or
The whole goal of the Windows port of BIND is to make it work as much as
possible like the one on Unix. The bind for windows specific traffic in
this list is
less than 1%. Why don't you just create a mail filter to dump the
mail to NULL?
At 05:25 PM 3/25/01, Doug Barton wrote:
> This is simply a suggestion, worth only the paper its printed
on since I
>have no way to create or enforce it. However, in my continuing campaign
>reduce the amount of unwanted e-mail I receive (and thereby give myself
>fighting chance to read the things that are important to me) it
>me that it might be of mutual benefit for the isc to create a list
>to the needs of those who run bind on windows.
> What do y'all think?
> Perhaps the greatest damage the American system of education has
> to its children is to teach them that their opinions are relevant
> simply because they are their opinions.
> Do YOU Yahoo!?
More information about the bind-users