Dave Wreski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote about my inetd patches:
> They never got included for a good reason. This functionality is already
> available by using ipfwadm to block access to ports to wish to restrict.
And if I want to run different daemons on the same port number of different
IP addresses? Or the same daemon but with different command-line arguments?
I don't know any way to use ipfwadm to do that, and it was my primary
objective. I just thought that it might be useful for Brian's problem as
well. And I submit that it is a lot easier to configure than ipfwadm.
I believe in the traditional Unix philosophy of having relatively simple
tools that do one thing well, rather than trying to do everything. In this
case, it is my opinion that this functionality is reasonably consistent with
the purpose of inetd, and thus belongs in inetd rather than some other
utility. Furthermore, it doesn't introduce any significant penalty in
run-time performance, and it has only a trivial impact on the size of the
executable.
However, I'll concede that in general when the primary requirement is
blocking access to ports, other tools like tcp-wrappers and ipfwadm are
obviously the better-suited tools.
Cheers,
Eric
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ /RedHat-Errata /RedHat-Tips /mailing-lists
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject.
