From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Nov 7 14:49:18 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA24583 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 14:49:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from who.cdrom.com (who.cdrom.com [204.216.27.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA24538 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 14:49:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from zwei.siemens.at (zwei.siemens.at [193.81.246.12]) by who.cdrom.com (8.7.5/8.6.11) with ESMTP id EAA16034 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 04:47:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from sol1.gud.siemens.co.at (root@[10.1.143.100]) by zwei.siemens.at (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA07538 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 13:46:16 +0100 (MET) Received: from ws2301.gud.siemens.co.at by sol1.gud.siemens.co.at with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #7 for ) id m0vLTrH-00021LC; Thu, 7 Nov 96 13:46 MET Received: by ws2301.gud.siemens.co.at (1.37.109.16/1.37) id AA282520755; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 13:45:55 +0100 From: "Hr.Ladavac" Message-Id: <199611071245.AA282520755@ws2301.gud.siemens.co.at> Subject: Re: still no response To: terry@lambert.org (Terry Lambert) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 13:45:55 +0100 (MEZ) Cc: julian@whistle.com, hackers@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199611070146.SAA09269@phaeton.artisoft.com> from "Terry Lambert" at Nov 6, 96 06:46:19 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME8a] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 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. >