From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 24 11:04:58 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B180D607 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 11:04:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.lhr1.as41113.net (mail.lhr1.as41113.net [91.208.177.22]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 700C41589 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 11:04:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.21.87.41] (unknown [212.9.98.193]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: lists@rewt.org.uk) by mail.lhr1.as41113.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3fXgRF6d5nz7rBW for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 11:05:13 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <530B2750.3050200@rewt.org.uk> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 11:04:48 +0000 From: Joe Holden User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Import of DragonFly Mail Agent References: <20140223211155.GS1699@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <530B13CA.6000005@rewt.org.uk> <33612.1393235765@critter.freebsd.dk> <20140224100036.GA1699@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <530B2500.5030608@rewt.org.uk> <37319.1393239415@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: <37319.1393239415@critter.freebsd.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 11:04:58 -0000 On 24/02/2014 10:56, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <530B2500.5030608@rewt.org.uk>, Joe Holden writes: > >> Can I also suggest that ntp.org shouldn't be in the base either? :P > > I absolutely agree, but the replacement is less clear in that case. > > I'd suggest openntpd as a candidate as it would require less work than dntpd since that has some kernel changes. At ~400K it is pretty lightweight and doesn't listen at all by default, suitable as a default ntpd that just maintains time - one can always install ntp.org from ports should they need more features (such as access control and monlist, etc)