From owner-freebsd-stable  Wed Jul  9 13:37:20 1997
Return-Path: <owner-stable>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA06781
          for stable-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jul 1997 13:37:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell.uniserve.com (tom@shell.uniserve.com [204.244.210.252])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA06771
          for <stable@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 9 Jul 1997 13:37:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (tom@localhost)
	by shell.uniserve.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA02216;
	Wed, 9 Jul 1997 13:33:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: shell.uniserve.com: tom owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 13:33:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tom <tom@uniserve.com>
To: Mike Nowlin <mike@r2d2.smlab.com>
cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: limit socket connections on 2.1.7
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.96.970709162626.365A-100000@r2d2.smlab.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970709133009.1985A-100000@shell.uniserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Mike Nowlin wrote:

> 
> This is being used for a "for sale by connection" service, where the
> customers have access to their source code...  I sell them a TCP port,
> they run their software on it.......  I could require they put a certain
> block of code in their programs that restrict the number of connections,
> but that would be a bit difficult to monitor/enforce.........
> 
> Mike

  But how are you stopping them from using additional ports?

  Why do you just bill by CPU time instead?  Don't have to worry about
connections or ports.

Tom