On Sun, 11 Jul 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 11 Jul 1999 01:49:59 -0400, "Brian F. Feldman" wrote:
>
> > inetd already has the built-in equivalent to that. Maybe it's possible
> > to make a REAL ident (*cough* the one I wrote) an option, inetd has
> > that service off by default.
>
> That sounds much more like it. I will say that I suspect this is a bad
> move. The more I think about it, the more I think we don't want the
> kitchen sink in there.
>
> Inetd only offers a limited auth service to prevent delays in the
> servicing of requests from local users on remote hosts. Anyone who wants
> to use the auth service for other things should probably use a
> specialized piece of software to do that.
>
> I don't think inetd needs this functionality built in. I think that what
> you really want is pidentd imported into the base system. And while it's
> noble to want a GNU-free base system and I applaud efforts in that
> direction, you should probably slow down and read pidentd's license
> agreement. :-)
>
> Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with leaving pidentd as
> a port.
I find pidentd gross, to say the least. I don't see why not to kill it...
And this service is very small, so it doesn't make inetd "huge". It's
not feeping creaturism because I replaced the ident service there with
a working one.
>
> > Then the user can select one of two lines for a real ident
> > service or a fake one.
>
> DES has some interesting ideas in this direction. Take a look at closed
> PR 11796 if and when you start thinking about how to implement this.
>
> Ciao,
> Sheldon.
>
Brian Fundakowski Feldman _ __ ___ ____ ___ ___ ___
gr...@freebsd.org _ __ ___ | _ ) __| \
FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! _ __ | _ \._ \ |) |
http://www.FreeBSD.org/ _ |___/___/___/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
