From owner-freebsd-current Tue Apr 8 11:48:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA23318 for current-outgoing; Tue, 8 Apr 1997 11:48:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from who.cdrom.com (who.cdrom.com [204.216.27.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA23295 for ; Tue, 8 Apr 1997 11:47:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from militzer.me.tuns.ca (militzer.me.tuns.ca [134.190.50.153]) by who.cdrom.com (8.8.5/8.6.11) with ESMTP id LAA01810 for ; Tue, 8 Apr 1997 11:47:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (bemfica@localhost) by militzer.me.tuns.ca (8.8.5/8.8.4) with SMTP id PAA03965 for ; Tue, 8 Apr 1997 15:45:37 -0300 (ADT) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 15:45:36 -0300 (ADT) From: Antonio Bemfica To: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: nfs problem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Doug Rabson wrote: > FreeBSD-current now uses secure ports by default. And what would be the proper way to reconcile this new behaviour with the requests by clients that want access through insecure ports? I'm having problems with amd, and would not like to just "make it work" now when there is a recommended way of doing it (especially if it will get "broken" again the next time I recompile the system). Antonio -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "I myself have always disliked being called a 'genius'. It is fascinating to notice how quick people have been to intuit this aversion and avoid using the term" -- John Lanchester, in "The Debt to Pleasure"