BIND will completely drop D-BUS dynamic forwarders table support

[Jima]

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Adam Tkac wrote:
> Why? Generally dnsmasq (or other lightweight) DNS server beat BIND
> with executable size and performance on one processor systems. In
> other cases like functionality, performance on multi cores and
> portability beat BIND other servers. And as I wrote above future of
> DNS is in DNSSEC. And I'm not sure if dnsmasq author is eager to
> implement it. That's why BIND should not be marked as irrelevant on this
> field.

  Okay, so I asked him.
  His reply:

> You're right that dnsmasq attempts to preserve security information: to 
> the extent that signed packets are passed through bit-perfect to avoid 
> breaking the signature, It doesn't, however actually know about DNSSEC 
> at all.
>
> My attitude is that I'm very happy to take a patch which implements 
> checking (preferably with suitable #ifdefs so it can be ommitted, if 
> it's big). I'm not in a position to do the work myself at the moment. I 
> don't have the knowledge, and I don't have the time to aquire it.

  IOW, our standard mantra: "patches accepted." :-)

      Jima