From owner-cvs-all Thu May 24 0:14:30 2001 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from coconut.itojun.org (coconut.itojun.org [210.160.95.97]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7F8B37B422; Thu, 24 May 2001 00:14:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from itojun@itojun.org) Received: from itojun.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by coconut.itojun.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02B6D4B19; Thu, 24 May 2001 16:14:23 +0900 (JST) To: Peter Wemm Cc: Matt Dillon , cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: peter's message of Thu, 24 May 2001 00:10:13 MST. <20010524071013.8884F380C@overcee.netplex.com.au> X-Template-Reply-To: itojun@itojun.org X-Template-Return-Receipt-To: itojun@itojun.org X-PGP-Fingerprint: F8 24 B4 2C 8C 98 57 FD 90 5F B4 60 79 54 16 E2 Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/telnet commands.c main.c telnet.1 From: itojun@iijlab.net Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 16:14:22 +0900 Message-ID: <9068.990688462@itojun.org> Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >> Bizarre... but how about giving inetd the capability to sit on a >> unix domain socket? Now *that* would be interesting. >In my case, it was kinda bizzare as it was using linemode etc when possible. >Yes, inetd would be the logical better place, but I fear going near that >bloated pig^H^H^H^H^H^H^H uhh... "opaque" code. NRL has been supporting unix domain socket in getaddrinfo(3) and getnameinfo(3), and they also do support unix domain socket on inetd. not sure if it is really worthwhile to do this... (i agree it is good for debugging protocol independent-ness) itojun To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message