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. > > Andy /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
