Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 13:45:55 +0100 (MEZ) From: "Hr.Ladavac" <lada@ws2301.gud.siemens.co.at> To: terry@lambert.org (Terry Lambert) Cc: julian@whistle.com, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: still no response Message-ID: <199611071245.AA282520755@ws2301.gud.siemens.co.at> In-Reply-To: <199611070146.SAA09269@phaeton.artisoft.com> from "Terry Lambert" at Nov 6, 96 06:46:19 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
E-mail message from Terry Lambert contained: > > I still haven't heard back from anyone regarding the > > session limit addition in inetd. > > > > does everyone think it's a boring idea? > > doesn no one dislikr it? > > should I just check it in? I've already said "go ahead", but I have vested interest. > > The inetd already has a session limit. It's just not per service, it's > per inetd, and it's compiled in. > > You can get the same effect right now by compiling another inetd and > starting several inetd's with different inetd.conf files per service > class. Except that I don't have the SINIX sources, and the compiled limit is *too small*. Now, I can probably persuade my sysadmins and higher management to replace inetd on a couple of machines with FreeBSD inetd if it were a drop-in replacement, with extensions. I *know* that they won't like the idea of multiple inetd's and multiple inetd.conf's running on the same machine. > > > I've used multiple inetd's for several years to get different '-R' > values for different things (tftpd, in particular, for a lab full of > X terminals). To make things even worse, I don't think that SINIX inetd supports -R :( > > I've only compiled up a seperate inetd with a use count restriction > once, and that was for an ISP who wanted to limit FTP sessions with > an old ftpd. > > > I can see where it might be a big deal for some ISP's, or for people > who want to put every service in a different limitation class. Other > than that, I'm pretty non-commital -- I can take it or leave it... it's > just an alternate way of doing things I can already do (but with the > bonus that people who don't understand inetd can twiddle the thing, > I suppose). As far as I understood the patch, it is fully backwardly compatible version, and hardly bloated at all. And it doesn't require another instance of inetd in core when running. /Marino > > > Terry Lambert > terry@lambert.org > --- > Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present > or previous employers. >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611071245.AA282520755>