From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Aug 2 10:22:44 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E169815237; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 10:22:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Received: from harmony.village.org (harmony.village.org [10.0.0.6]) by rover.village.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA87842; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 11:21:02 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Received: from harmony.village.org (localhost.village.org [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.9.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id LAA07176; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 11:21:07 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199908021721.LAA07176@harmony.village.org> To: Bill Fumerola Subject: Re: Mentioning RFC numbers in /etc/services Cc: committers@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 02 Aug 1999 12:08:09 EDT." References: Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 11:21:07 -0600 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message 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