From owner-freebsd-questions  Wed Jan 26  3:52:35 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from twwells.com (mtholly-pri-13.ppp.netaxs.com [207.8.237.31])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 745B314ECA
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 03:52:33 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from bill@twwells.com)
Received: from bill by twwells.com with local (Exim 1.71 #2)
	id 12DQzt-0009Gi-00; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 06:52:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Exim Socket Bind Problem
To: usebsd@free.fr (mouss)
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 100 06:52:29 -0500 (EST)
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <NDBBJDFPGLMLFHLNEEOMEECBDMAA.usebsd@free.fr> from "mouss" at Jan 26, 0 11:52:17 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 327       
Message-Id: <E12DQzt-0009Gi-00@twwells.com>
From: "T. William Wells" <bill@twwells.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> In my viewpoint, this is not abug, minor or not. This is a choice.
> when you write a program like thisand you call bind() and find that the port
> is already in use,

The bug is not in the behavior on calling bind. It is in the
behavior before the fork -- exim should have closed the socket,
thus making the port available.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message