Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 18:46:19 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: julian@whistle.com (Julian Elischer) Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: still no response Message-ID: <199611070146.SAA09269@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <328138CB.41C67EA6@whistle.com> from "Julian Elischer" at Nov 6, 96 05:18:03 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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? 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. 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). 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). 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?199611070146.SAA09269>