From owner-cvs-all Tue Jan 26 11:23:03 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA17618 for cvs-all-outgoing; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 11:23:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [209.157.86.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA17613; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 11:23:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.2/8.9.1) id LAA20798; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 11:22:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 11:22:21 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <199901261922.LAA20798@apollo.backplane.com> To: Mark Murray Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp , Andreas Klemm , Nate Williams , cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Small, useful tools (Was: Re: 'cpdup' program, and question) References: <27224.917376396@critter.freebsd.dk> <199901261912.VAA50572@greenpeace.grondar.za> Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk I have never personally liked using tcp-wrappers. BEST doesn't use it at all, and for good reason: (A) there usually isn't enough stuff worth wrapping, and (B) any machine loaded enough to be a target for repeated spamming, attacks, etc.... is also loaded enough that tcp-wrappers represents too large a burden. (C) ipfw works well enough for what I care about. I don't mind tcp-wrappers being included with the system, but I will fight tooth and nail if someone actually tries to make tcp-wrappers a run-time element of the standard FreeBSD distribution. -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message