Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 23:38:46 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Samplonius <tom@sdf.com> To: Julian Assange <proff@suburbia.net> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: virtual hosting with inetd Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.94.961110233126.22220A-100000@misery.sdf.com> In-Reply-To: <199611110520.QAA06904@suburbia.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Julian Assange wrote: > > Julian Assange wrote: > > > > > > Does anyone have any other comments on the patch > > > I produced? Terry, did I address yours? > > > Is it commitable? > > > > they are definitly useful, and we might need them in the near future.. > > I need to look at xinetd some time to see how much should be added to > > our inetd and how much should be considered "use xinetd instead". > > The xnited in ports doesn't do virtual hosting. At least not that I > could see. Yes, it does. Look at the "interface" directive in the man page. xinetd has had this feature since June 95 (date in doc). The access control, and instances limitation features are probably much older. xinetd is actually a very mature and stable product. Tom
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.94.961110233126.22220A-100000>