From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Nov 10 23:09:24 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id XAA22920 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 23:09:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from misery.sdf.com (misery.sdf.com [204.244.210.193]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA22911 for ; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 23:09:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from misery.sdf.com ([204.244.213.33]) by misery.sdf.com with SMTP id <1283-3086>; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 23:38:52 -0800 Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 23:38:46 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Samplonius To: Julian Assange cc: Julian Elischer , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: virtual hosting with inetd In-Reply-To: <199611110520.QAA06904@suburbia.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 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