From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri May 12 16:03:14 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id QAA12607
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 12 May 1995 16:03:14 -0700
Received: from ref.tfs.com (ref.tfs.com [140.145.254.251])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id QAA12600
          for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Fri, 12 May 1995 16:03:13 -0700
Received: (from phk@localhost) by ref.tfs.com (8.6.8/8.6.6) id QAA06040; Fri, 12 May 1995 16:03:09 -0700
From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@ref.tfs.com>
Message-Id: <199505122303.QAA06040@ref.tfs.com>
Subject: Re: REMOTE_HOST & REMOTE_USER
To: henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu (Charles Henrich)
Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 16:03:08 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org
In-Reply-To: <199505122232.PAA11874@freefall.cdrom.com> from "Charles Henrich" at May 12, 95 06:32:08 pm
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 619       
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> 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..

Good idea.  Consider two variables:

	REMOTE_IP=192.168.1.3
	REMOTE_PORT=2345

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@login.dknet.dk> -- TRW Financial Systems, Inc.
'All relevant people are pertinent' && 'All rude people are impertinent'
=> 'no rude people are relevant'