Michael L Torrie
torriem at chem.byu.edu
Sun Jul 29 12:38:38 MDT 2007
Andy Bradford wrote:
> Thus said Michael L Torrie on Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:04:34 MDT:
>>> Would you expect sendmail replacements (qmail, postfix, etc...) to
>>> be able to understand sendmail.cf? :-)
>> That's a fallacious comparison when it comes right down to it.
> How so? You are claiming that for djbdns to be a BIND replacement it
> must read BIND zone files. How is that different from claiming that for
> something to be a sendmail replacement (the most common MTA on the
> Internet) that it must understand sendmail.cf?
> Is not the BIND zone file simply one implementation of storing DNS
> records? Is not the sendmail.cf simply one implementation of configuring
> an MTA? Maybe it would be more correct if I argued that a sendmail
> replacement should be able to read sendmail's mail queue? How about
> sendmail's other configuration files which actually define things like
> virtual domains, relay domains, etc...?
It is, but it happens to be a fairly de facto standard for exchanging
human-readable zone information. Comparing this to sendmail.cf is
comparing apples to oranges, since sendmail.cf is equivalent to
named.conf *not* the zone files.
So no. I wouldn't expect a bind replacement to transparently handle
named.conf. But being able to natively read the zones themselves would
be something I'd expect. At least if files were the primary storage
(not a database). I understand that under the hood tinydns uses BDB to
put zone information, so I'm not quite sure the exact relationship with
the zone files and the database.
More information about the PLUG