From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 2 10:50:30 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7188516A4CE for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 10:50:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3BB243D1D for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 10:50:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) i12IoLFR018176 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 10:50:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i12IoL6g018174; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 10:50:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnats) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 10:50:21 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200402021850.i12IoL6g018174@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Ceri Davies Subject: Re: conf/62230: log-in-vain issues it's msg every time 'mail' command is used. X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Ceri Davies List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 18:50:30 -0000 The following reply was made to PR conf/62230; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Ceri Davies To: JJB Cc: bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net, freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org, questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: conf/62230: log-in-vain issues it's msg every time 'mail' command is used. Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 18:48:25 +0000 On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 12:39:08PM -0500, JJB wrote: > I disagree with you on this. > > Log-in-vain purpose in life is to interrogate attempts from > the external interface, not the localhost internal functions, > which this clearly is what is happening. That's simply not true. $ grep vain /etc/defaults/rc.conf log_in_vain="0" # >=1 to log connects to ports w/o listeners. > If you think this is such an trivial annoyance bug that it's > does not warrant attention, then just come out and say so, > and not beat around the bush with work around solutions in an > poor effort to conceal your reluctance to perform system > maintenance activities. It's not that I don't think it's a bug that warrants attention; I don't think it's a bug at all. Thanks also for your diatribe. I don't agree with any of that either. Ceri --