From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Aug 29 10:31:45 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from nohow.demon.co.uk (nohow.demon.co.uk [212.228.18.189]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED99D37B403 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 10:31:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from noway@nohow.demon.co.uk) Received: from localhost (noway@localhost) by nohow.demon.co.uk (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f7THVKk50337; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 18:31:20 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from noway@nohow.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 18:31:18 +0100 (BST) From: Jose Marques To: Rasputin Cc: Subject: Re: portmapper flags? In-Reply-To: <20010828164720.A29316@shaft.techsupport.co.uk> Message-ID: <20010829182507.P40625-100000@nohow.demon.co.uk> X-No-Archive: yes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Rasputin wrote: > Am I missing something here? From the portmap man page: Note: that when specifying ip addresses with -h, portmap will automatically add 127.0.0.1 to the list so you don't have to. So I guess if you say "-h 127.0.0.1" then it adds "127.0.0.1" to the list, therfore that address appears twice, hence the error? If so I think this is a bug as it prevents one from telling portmap to listen on lo0 interface only (useful if one uses wordperfect for Linux from the ports - which needs portmap running otherwise it hangs on start-up). Note: portmap pays attention to the contents of the "/etc/hosts.allow" file so one could restrict access that way. -- Jose Marques To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message