Date: Fri, 12 May 95 17:02:34 MDT From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) To: henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu (Charles Henrich) Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: REMOTE_HOST & REMOTE_USER Message-ID: <9505122302.AA04093@cs.weber.edu> In-Reply-To: <199505122232.PAA11874@freefall.cdrom.com> from "Charles Henrich" at May 12, 95 06:32:08 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> How do you folks feel about making inetd set the REMOTE_HOST variable to the > hostname/ip of the connected peer? SGI's do this and it comes in quite handy. > > Is inetd the right place (instead of login say?). I keep debating between the > two, but for maximal benefit I think it should stay in inetd, and have login > preserve the value, or reset it.. I think you want telnetd and rlogind to do this. Neither one inherits environment from the inetd to the slave side of the pty. I think login would need to preserve the value; login itself would be incapable of running getpeername() since it would be on a slave side of a pty and would not get a valid response (besides which, login not on a network connection would get bogus values too). The feature *I'd* like if anyone was interested anyway would be the ability to give an argument to telnetd in inetd.conf to make it run a program other than login (and not even prompt in the first place). This would let all those muck/mud/bbs/whatever programmers put up a regular program as a telnet service, yet correctly negotiate things like line mode protocol (by having telnetd do it on their behalf). Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9505122302.AA04093>