From owner-freebsd-chat Wed May 9 2:50:10 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from phoenix.welearn.com.au (unknown [139.130.44.81]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4065A37B422 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 02:50:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sue@phoenix.welearn.com.au) Received: (from sue@localhost) by phoenix.welearn.com.au (8.11.1/8.11.1) id f499oEc41908 for freebsd-chat@freebsd.org; Wed, 9 May 2001 19:50:14 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from sue) Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 19:50:14 +1000 From: Sue Blake To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Smile if you've used ock Message-ID: <20010509195014.J26132@welearn.com.au> Mail-Followup-To: Sue Blake , freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Having nothing better to do on my holidays, I've been entertaining myself reading /etc/services. There's some wonderful service names, current favourites being 'openport', 'hassle', and 'shrinkwrap'. Then I saw what looks like a typo: cadlock 1000/tcp ock 1000/udp I traced it back through CVS and wound up at RFC1700, where it is listed exactly the same. But it still _looks_ like a typo :-) Generally the same number is assigned for both TCP and UDP even if both are not required by the service, and /etc/services reads very Noah's Ark style, although there are some exceptions. What if it were a typo? Do RFCs have bugs? errata? Or would that be sacrilege? -- Regards, -*Sue*- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message