Re: BIND for offline email UUCP gateway

Jim Dennis (jimd@starshine.org)
Sun, 11 Oct 1998 18:26:52 -0700


>
> On 9 Oct 1998, Jim Dennis wrote:
>> Ow W K Danny <owwkd@cybernix.com.sg> writes:
>>> On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, Azfar Kazmi wrote:
>
>>>> I am willing to put an offline email uucp gateway on my
>>>> network. I will get an uucp account from my ISP and that ISP
>>>> will also provide me with DNS facilities [for gateway only.] In
>>>> these conditions, with linux 5.x and sendmail 8.8.x, do I
>>>> *really* need to also install BIND?
>
> If "my network" is a TCP/IP LAN, you need a name server somewhere on
> it (your ISP will _not_ provide anything of this nature for your
> LAN, if you only have a UUCP gateway), or else you need to put all
> the host names in the /etc/hosts file of each host (or whatever the
> equivalent to /etc/hosts is for whatever other operating systems the
> hosts on your LAN employ).

You don't *need* a DNS server on your TCP/IP LAN.
You can get by with hosts/networks files (/etc/* files)
and you can do this via NIS.

You can also do this via DNS, which is the most scaleable
way to do it. However, you have your options.

> If you don't run a name server, several programs, including sendmail
> and emacs, need to be configured so that they do not try to do DNS
> lookups.

I don't know about emacs --- it will use the
gethostbynam, etc. 'sendmail' will normally try to
resolve MX records, which does require DNS. However
it can be configured to use NIS in preference to
DNS or you can use "null clients" and point to your
hubs by IP address (like I do here at "starshine.org").

> If you set up a name server, the only complication is that it will
> also be the root name server "." within the universe of your LAN.
>
> The book "DNS and BIND" published by O'Reilly shows how to configure
> a local-root name server.

If you can point to a "cut and paste"-able or other
electronic text example, that would be nice.

> If you set up a nameserver you have a standard, unproblematic
> environment. You can do without, and things should work, but you
> may have a few unexpected problems to solve.
>
> I'm not sure why you *really* want to avoid the obvious. I guess
> you need to decide between a solved problem with a standard
> solution, but one which you don't want to have to understand, and
> some unknown but hopefully small number of other problems which may
> not have standard solutions but which hopefully you may be able to
> solve.
>
> Rgds, mtw

The question may be moot or academic. It may also
involve bigger issues. The DNS system is not secure,
so it may be that he has some special needs that we are
unaware of. There is a "secure DNS" specification, and
even some experimental implementation code. However, we
haven't seen a usable version of that deployed yet.

Who knows. However I think we should answer the question
as presented first, then impose our opinions on it.

--
Jim Dennis  (800) 938-4078		consulting@starshine.org
Proprietor, Starshine Technical Services:  http://www.starshine.org

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu