Re: Potentially Predatory Pre-Announcement of Possible Vaporware (zinq-djbdns-0.01)

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Laurent Bercot <[email protected]> wrote:
>  Look at the obvious coding style differences between autoconf and
> djbdns. Since you're working on djbware, I think it's safe to assume
> you like DJB's coding style. Why then succumb to the bloated side and
> create some unholy hybrid?

That's not a safe assumption.  I like the *results* of his coding
style (few, if any, exploits).  The lack of comments, I'm not so
thrilled with.  I don't think he was interested in going out of his
way to make things easy for anybody but him to maintain the codebase.

>  As for DNSSEC: for heaven's sake, please, no.
>  DNSSEC does not work. DNSSEC will not work. With all the resources
> that the ISC, and AFAIK the US government, have invested into DNSSEC,
> it would be working *now* if it was meant to work.
>  But it's not. It's flawed by design.
>
>  DJB's policy is: do not implement or use things that are flawed by
> design.
>  This policy has kept the code clean, secure and small. Please do not
> go against it, no matter how much political pressure you're submitted
> to.

I'm not going to expend the effort on a DNSSEC implementation for
djbdns myself.  If somebody sent me a diff, I might integrate it and
ship it, though.  It might be horked.  It might be flawed.  It might
be the stupidest thing on the face of the earth.  But it might get
djbdns in the door a few places it might not, otherwise.