Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 11:21:07 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: Bill Fumerola <billf@jade.chc-chimes.com> Cc: committers@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Mentioning RFC numbers in /etc/services Message-ID: <199908021721.LAA07176@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 02 Aug 1999 12:08:09 EDT." <Pine.BSF.4.10.9908021206050.11428-100000@jade.chc-chimes.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9908021206050.11428-100000@jade.chc-chimes.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.BSF.4.10.9908021206050.11428-100000@jade.chc-chimes.com> Bill Fumerola writes: : Copying the telnet line and changing the first word to 'http' does wonders : for being to access machines from inside a school district's firewall. What if the service has no name? : Choosing ports by number would be nice, however the same objections Matt : had with changing our API ring some buzzers in my head too, however the : evil side of me says "screw whoever is porting inetd, we like functionality. : : The evil side normally wins. I don't think we should change getportbyname. If the getportbyname fails, see if a strtol returns a number, and if so use that. I don't see what is so hard about doing that. If someone wants to run a service on a port that it wasn't desinged for, they can still do it today. I don't see what the argument against this change could possibly be. There is no evil here. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199908021721.LAA07176>