rbl-style zones?

[Michael Richardson]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


>>>>> "Paul" == Paul Vixie <vixie at vix.com> writes:
    Paul> my questions are:

    Paul> 1. is this simplistic storage method too simplistic?

    Paul> 2. is there demand in the BIND community for this feature?

  I'd rather not have more complexity in bind.

  I think that many of us are moving towards using BIND9 only for
recursive (secure) resolution, with things like NSD for primary zone
serving. 
  I don't run RBL zones, but if I did, I'd rather use a program
optomized for that kind of work.

  The only concern that I have is that sometimes one wants a machine
that is primarily a cache, but for various reasons, one decides to make
it a (stealth) secondary for some critical zones.  

  If those are RBL zones, then maybe this is an issue.
  I got the impression that "subtype rbl;" wouldn't apply to secondaries?

- -- 
] Michael Richardson          Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON |  firewalls  [
] mcr @ xelerance.com           Now doing IPsec training, see   |net architect[
] http://www.sandelman.ca/mcr/    www.xelerance.com/training/   |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Finger me for keys

iQCVAwUBQm0kq4qHRg3pndX9AQFBcQQA5AqTjtIIKTpHiMJCXbDAO6B7GELZrh+B
HkQL2VkmDfwC203ogPeANENXLzNOp5TmiTwqVNoOuTGE+ibhgF4D+Y8NXE+zk4Xd
H7eUSk5JOzY9TWAzWaYI0aC6XXjGbVU2ut0p6iL7jusiO+Xjlmnk44zCzEgXSDQO
8v3NDgY092c=
=qCzo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----