Assar Westerlund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As an enhancement, the strtol() check should verify that the passed
service number is completely numeric:
--- inetd.c.orig Mon Aug 2 22:35:28 1999
+++ inetd.c Mon Aug 2 22:41:52 1999
@@ -830,34 +830,50 @@
continue;
In message 199908022217.xaa02...@keep.lan.awfulhak.org Brian Somers writes:
: Yes, but do it the other way 'round - strtol first, if it's not all
: numeric, getservbyname().
I did it getservbyname first in case there were any legacy services
that were all numbers. Traditionally, this is
In some email I received from Brian Somers, sie wrote:
[.]
Yes, but do it the other way 'round - strtol first, if it's not all
numeric, getservbyname().
No, the patch was correct.
Not in my book - see my other posting :]
--
Brian br...@awfulhak.org
In message 199908030624.haa00...@keep.lan.awfulhak.org Brian Somers writes:
: Exactly - ditto for gethostbyname(). In the case of gethostbyname(),
: I believe that domain names can't have a number as the first
: character - I would have thought this idea should follow through with
: services.
Assar Westerlund as...@sics.se wrote:
As an enhancement, the strtol() check should verify that the passed
service number is completely numeric:
--- inetd.c.orig Mon Aug 2 22:35:28 1999
+++ inetd.c Mon Aug 2 22:41:52 1999
@@ -830,34 +830,50 @@
continue;
John-Mark Gurney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sheldon Hearn scribbled this message on Aug 1:
Would you need these entries if inetd let you specify port numbers
instead of service names?
I vote for allowing inetd.conf to specify a port number instead of a
service name... it should be very
On 02 Aug 1999 13:05:17 +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
The correct way to do this is to fix getservbyname() so it accepts
port numbers.
Would this not still require modifications to /etc/services for services
not already mentioned in that file?
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail
Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
John-Mark Gurney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sheldon Hearn scribbled this message on Aug 1:
Would you need these entries if inetd let you specify port numbers
instead of service names?
I vote for allowing inetd.conf to specify a port number instead of a
Sheldon Hearn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 02 Aug 1999 13:05:17 +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
The correct way to do this is to fix getservbyname() so it accepts
port numbers.
Would this not still require modifications to /etc/services for services
not already mentioned in that file?
On 02 Aug 1999 13:19:01 +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
Would this not still require modifications to /etc/services for services
not already mentioned in that file?
Allow me to re-quote the message I answered:
I vote for allowing inetd.conf to specify a port number instead of a
On Sat, 31 Jul 1999 23:00:15 MST, Doug wrote:
Would you need these entries if inetd let you specify port numbers
instead of service names?
Errr... while that may be of value to someone, it has nothing to
do with the issue Ben and I were discussing.
Yes yes. I'm not trying to
Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
It may allow an application to
use a port number that would otherwise be invalid.
Please elaborate.
I don't have any specific applications in mind :) But suppose an
application (for whatever reason) only wants to allow
On Mon, 02 Aug 1999 07:30:32 -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
Are you also going to allow getservbyport to lookup names?
And how are you going to squish a name into an int? :-)
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the
:John-Mark Gurney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Sheldon Hearn scribbled this message on Aug 1:
: Would you need these entries if inetd let you specify port numbers
: instead of service names?
: I vote for allowing inetd.conf to specify a port number instead of a
: service name... it should be
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dag-Erling Smorgrav writes:
: Allow me to re-quote the message I answered:
:
: I vote for allowing inetd.conf to specify a port number instead of a
: service name...
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: This is an excellent idea!
Warner
To Unsubscribe:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dag-Erling Smorgrav writes:
: Daniel Eischen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
: The correct way to do this is to fix getservbyname() so it accepts
: port numbers.
: Are you sure this is what you want?
I'm 100% positive that I want this.
:
On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, Warner Losh wrote:
I say that I don't care if it allows this. In fact, I want to be able
to do things like that...
Copying the telnet line and changing the first word to 'http' does wonders
for being to access machines from inside a school district's firewall.
Choosing
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill
Fumerola writes:
: Copying the telnet line and changing the first word to 'http' does wonders
: for being to access machines from inside a school district's firewall.
What if the service has no name?
: Choosing ports by number would be nice, however the same
On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, Warner Losh wrote:
I don't think we should change getportbyname. If the getportbyname
fails, see if a strtol returns a number, and if so use that. I don't
see what is so hard about doing that.
I agree. The change should be made in inetd, not in getportbyname()
If
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Darren Reed writes:
: Why not just use the changes NetBSD made to their inetd ~6 years ago ?
Didn't know about them?
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
:The correct way to do this is to fix getservbyname() so it accepts
:port numbers. : :DES :-- :Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If we were to depend on this, it would break code compatibility with
other UNIXes for no good reason. For example,
On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, Brian Somers wrote:
Yes, but do it the other way 'round - strtol first, if it's not all
numeric, getservbyname().
Can't you have all numeric service names?
David scheidt
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brian Somers writes:
: Yes, but do it the other way 'round - strtol first, if it's not all
: numeric, getservbyname().
I did it getservbyname first in case there were any legacy services
that were all numbers. Traditionally, this is hwo things were done
with IP
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brian Somers writes:
: Exactly - ditto for gethostbyname(). In the case of gethostbyname(),
: I believe that domain names can't have a number as the first
: character - I would have thought this idea should follow through with
: services.
No. That is in error.
John-Mark Gurney gurne...@efn.org writes:
Sheldon Hearn scribbled this message on Aug 1:
Would you need these entries if inetd let you specify port numbers
instead of service names?
I vote for allowing inetd.conf to specify a port number instead of a
service name... it should be very easy
On 02 Aug 1999 13:05:17 +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
The correct way to do this is to fix getservbyname() so it accepts
port numbers.
Would this not still require modifications to /etc/services for services
not already mentioned in that file?
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail
Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
John-Mark Gurney gurne...@efn.org writes:
Sheldon Hearn scribbled this message on Aug 1:
Would you need these entries if inetd let you specify port numbers
instead of service names?
I vote for allowing inetd.conf to specify a port number instead of a
service
Sheldon Hearn sheld...@uunet.co.za writes:
On 02 Aug 1999 13:05:17 +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
The correct way to do this is to fix getservbyname() so it accepts
port numbers.
Would this not still require modifications to /etc/services for services
not already mentioned in that file?
On 02 Aug 1999 13:19:01 +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
Would this not still require modifications to /etc/services for services
not already mentioned in that file?
Allow me to re-quote the message I answered:
I vote for allowing inetd.conf to specify a port number instead of a
Daniel Eischen eisc...@vigrid.com writes:
Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
The correct way to do this is to fix getservbyname() so it accepts
port numbers.
Are you sure this is what you want?
Yes.
It may allow an application to
use a port number that would
On Sat, 31 Jul 1999 23:00:15 MST, Doug wrote:
Would you need these entries if inetd let you specify port numbers
instead of service names?
Errr... while that may be of value to someone, it has nothing to
do with the issue Ben and I were discussing.
Yes yes. I'm not trying to
On 02 Aug 1999 13:27:44 +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
I don't see in what way an application could break if getservbyname()
suddenly accepted numeric port specifications. It won't ``stop working
as intended'', it'll keep on working as it always used to, plus a
little more.
My
Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
It may allow an application to
use a port number that would otherwise be invalid.
Please elaborate.
I don't have any specific applications in mind :) But suppose an
application (for whatever reason) only wants to allow
Daniel Eischen wrote:
Are you also going to allow getservbyport to lookup names?
Stupid question. This isn't possible since getservbyport takes
an int argument.
Dan Eischen
eisc...@vigrid.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body
On Mon, 02 Aug 1999 07:30:32 -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
Are you also going to allow getservbyport to lookup names?
And how are you going to squish a name into an int? :-)
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the
Sheldon Hearn sheld...@uunet.co.za writes:
If we fix this in inetd, we get what we want. If we fix this in
getservbyport() we may get something that we don't want, namely
applications that relay on the existing behaviour of the function stop
working as intended.
I don't see in what way an
:John-Mark Gurney gurne...@efn.org writes:
: Sheldon Hearn scribbled this message on Aug 1:
: Would you need these entries if inetd let you specify port numbers
: instead of service names?
: I vote for allowing inetd.conf to specify a port number instead of a
: service name... it should be
In message xzppv162zx6@flood.ping.uio.no Dag-Erling Smorgrav writes:
: Allow me to re-quote the message I answered:
:
: I vote for allowing inetd.conf to specify a port number instead of a
: service name...
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: This is an excellent idea!
Warner
To
In message xzpoggq2zr5@flood.ping.uio.no Dag-Erling Smorgrav writes:
: Daniel Eischen eisc...@vigrid.com writes:
: Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
: The correct way to do this is to fix getservbyname() so it accepts
: port numbers.
: Are you sure this is what you want?
I'm 100% positive that
On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, Warner Losh wrote:
I say that I don't care if it allows this. In fact, I want to be able
to do things like that...
Copying the telnet line and changing the first word to 'http' does wonders
for being to access machines from inside a school district's firewall.
Choosing
In message pine.bsf.4.10.9908021206050.11428-100...@jade.chc-chimes.com Bill
Fumerola writes:
: Copying the telnet line and changing the first word to 'http' does wonders
: for being to access machines from inside a school district's firewall.
What if the service has no name?
: Choosing ports
On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, Warner Losh wrote:
I don't think we should change getportbyname. If the getportbyname
fails, see if a strtol returns a number, and if so use that. I don't
see what is so hard about doing that.
I agree. The change should be made in inetd, not in getportbyname()
If
In message pine.bsf.4.10.9908021226580.11428-100...@jade.chc-chimes.com Bill
Fumerola writes:
: I agree. The change should be made in inetd, not in getportbyname()
Or getservbyname (which is really what you'd want to change). I have
patches to inetd that I've enclosed here. They are gorss, but
In message 199908021754.daa25...@avalon.reed.wattle.id.au Darren Reed writes:
: Why not just use the changes NetBSD made to their inetd ~6 years ago ?
Didn't know about them?
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Warner Losh i...@village.org writes:
Or getservbyname (which is really what you'd want to change). I have
patches to inetd that I've enclosed here. They are gorss, but the
code itself doesn't lend itself to non-gross patches w/o some rework,
which I was too lazy to do this morning.
Or you
dil...@apollo.backplane.com said:
:The correct way to do this is to fix getservbyname() so it accepts
:port numbers. : :DES :-- :Dag-Erling Smorgrav - d...@flood.ping.uio.no
If we were to depend on this, it would break code compatibility with
other UNIXes for no good reason.
[.]
@@ -832,15 +833,21 @@
if (!sep-se_rpc) {
sp = getservbyname(sep-se_service, sep-se_proto);
if (sp == 0) {
+ if ((p = strtol(sep-se_service,
+ (char **NULL), 10))) {
On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, Brian Somers wrote:
Yes, but do it the other way 'round - strtol first, if it's not all
numeric, getservbyname().
Can't you have all numeric service names?
David scheidt
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the
In message 199908022217.xaa02...@keep.lan.awfulhak.org Brian Somers writes:
: Yes, but do it the other way 'round - strtol first, if it's not all
: numeric, getservbyname().
I did it getservbyname first in case there were any legacy services
that were all numbers. Traditionally, this is hwo
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] John-Mark Gurney writes:
: I vote for allowing inetd.conf to specify a port number instead of a
: service name... it should be very easy to make the modification, and
: I'm willing to do all the work, assuming no one on -committers objects..
I'd love to be able to
Sheldon Hearn wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 15:10:18 MST, Doug wrote:
On some of the machines I administer I have some custom entries for
/etc/services that make more sense than the defaults, especially for
the ports 1023.
Would you need these entries if inetd let you specify port
In message 37a3e203.de0fe...@gorean.org, Doug wrote:
} Sheldon Hearn wrote:
}
} On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 15:05:14 MST, Doug wrote:
}
} I still haven't heard anyone answer the two key (IMO) questions.
}
} Your questions are easier answered in reverse order:
}
} and how do you
Jon Hamilton wrote:
No. ipfw deals with /etc/services only at startup time (any other behavior on
its part would be ridiculous).
That's not entirely true, there are other situations (like adding a
rule,
etc.) but your point is well taken. And no, I can't provide specific
examples, my
In message 37a3e944.7f28e...@gorean.org, Doug wrote:
} Jon Hamilton wrote:
}
} No. ipfw deals with /etc/services only at startup time (any other behavior
} on
} its part would be ridiculous).
}
} That's not entirely true, there are other situations (like adding a rul
} e,
} etc.) but
In message 19990731161854.11...@hydrogen.fircrest.net John-Mark Gurney writes:
: I vote for allowing inetd.conf to specify a port number instead of a
: service name... it should be very easy to make the modification, and
: I'm willing to do all the work, assuming no one on -committers objects..
On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 15:05:14 MST, Doug wrote:
I still haven't heard anyone answer the two key (IMO) questions.
Your questions are easier answered in reverse order:
and how do you justify the additional cost to parse the file for every
single system call that uses it?
The
On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 15:10:18 MST, Doug wrote:
On some of the machines I administer I have some custom entries for
/etc/services that make more sense than the defaults, especially for
the ports 1023.
Would you need these entries if inetd let you specify port numbers
instead of service
Sheldon Hearn scribbled this message on Aug 1:
Would you need these entries if inetd let you specify port numbers
instead of service names?
I vote for allowing inetd.conf to specify a port number instead of a
service name... it should be very easy to make the modification, and
I'm willing to
Sheldon Hearn wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 15:05:14 MST, Doug wrote:
I still haven't heard anyone answer the two key (IMO) questions.
Your questions are easier answered in reverse order:
and how do you justify the additional cost to parse the file for every
single system call
Sheldon Hearn wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 15:10:18 MST, Doug wrote:
On some of the machines I administer I have some custom entries for
/etc/services that make more sense than the defaults, especially for
the ports 1023.
Would you need these entries if inetd let you specify port
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug wrote:
} Sheldon Hearn wrote:
}
} On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 15:05:14 MST, Doug wrote:
}
} I still haven't heard anyone answer the two key (IMO) questions.
}
} Your questions are easier answered in reverse order:
}
} and how do you justify the
On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 15:05:14 MST, Doug wrote:
I still haven't heard anyone answer the two key (IMO) questions.
Your questions are easier answered in reverse order:
and how do you justify the additional cost to parse the file for every
single system call that uses it?
The information
On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 15:10:18 MST, Doug wrote:
On some of the machines I administer I have some custom entries for
/etc/services that make more sense than the defaults, especially for
the ports 1023.
Would you need these entries if inetd let you specify port numbers
instead of service
Sheldon Hearn scribbled this message on Aug 1:
Would you need these entries if inetd let you specify port numbers
instead of service names?
I vote for allowing inetd.conf to specify a port number instead of a
service name... it should be very easy to make the modification, and
I'm willing to
Sheldon Hearn wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 15:05:14 MST, Doug wrote:
I still haven't heard anyone answer the two key (IMO) questions.
Your questions are easier answered in reverse order:
and how do you justify the additional cost to parse the file for every
single system call
On Wed, 28 Jul 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
: Sheldon Hearn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: I plan to mention in the comments for each service in /etc/services, the
: latest RFC describing the service.
:
: Good idea.
:
: H... I'm not sure what this gets us. Wouldn't it be better to
On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, Ben Rosengart wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, Josef Karthauser wrote:
Ok - but it's a bit misleading having both values in /etc/services..
Shouldn't be:
http 80/tcpwww www-http #World Wide Web HTTP
http 80/udpwww www-http
On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Doug wrote:
The -n option to trafshow disables number-name translation for
both addresses and ports, although that might be more than what is wanted.
I do know what you mean though. On some of the machines I administer I
have some custom entries for /etc/services
On Wed, 28 Jul 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
: Sheldon Hearn sheld...@uunet.co.za writes:
: I plan to mention in the comments for each service in /etc/services, the
: latest RFC describing the service.
:
: Good idea.
:
: H... I'm not sure what this gets us. Wouldn't it be better
On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, Ben Rosengart wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, Josef Karthauser wrote:
Ok - but it's a bit misleading having both values in /etc/services..
Shouldn't be:
http 80/tcpwww www-http #World Wide Web HTTP
http 80/udpwww www-http
On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Doug wrote:
The -n option to trafshow disables number-name translation for
both addresses and ports, although that might be more than what is wanted.
I do know what you mean though. On some of the machines I administer I
have some custom entries for /etc/services
On Wed, Jul 28, 1999 at 05:59:29PM -0700, Doug wrote:
On 26 Jul 1999, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
It would also be nice if someone would take another look at
bringing our /etc/services file more up to date with IANA
(http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/port-numbers). I believe
On Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:04:20 +0100, Josef Karthauser wrote:
A question that always baffled me (I'm fairly easy to baffle) is why
we've got some numbers defined as both udp and tcp when the service
type is only one or the other. Does anyone know?
Probably because this question isn't
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 09:04:20AM +0100, Josef Karthauser wrote:
A question that always baffled me (I'm fairly easy to baffle) is why we've
got some numbers defined as both udp and tcp when the service type is only
one or the other. Does anyone know?
Probably because the IANA specifies them
Dominic Mitchell wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 09:04:20AM +0100, Josef Karthauser wrote:
A question that always baffled me (I'm fairly easy to baffle) is why we've
got some numbers defined as both udp and tcp when the service type is only
one or the other. Does anyone know?
Probably
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 12:11:39PM -0700, Doug wrote:
Dominic Mitchell wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 09:04:20AM +0100, Josef Karthauser wrote:
A question that always baffled me (I'm fairly easy to baffle) is why we've
got some numbers defined as both udp and tcp when the service type
On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, Josef Karthauser wrote:
Ok - but it's a bit misleading having both values in /etc/services..
Shouldn't be:
http 80/tcpwww www-http #World Wide Web HTTP
http 80/udpwww www-http #World Wide Web HTTP
Should be:
http
On Wed, Jul 28, 1999 at 05:59:29PM -0700, Doug wrote:
On 26 Jul 1999, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
It would also be nice if someone would take another look at
bringing our /etc/services file more up to date with IANA
(http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/port-numbers). I believe
On Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:04:20 +0100, Josef Karthauser wrote:
A question that always baffled me (I'm fairly easy to baffle) is why
we've got some numbers defined as both udp and tcp when the service
type is only one or the other. Does anyone know?
Probably because this question isn't
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 09:04:20AM +0100, Josef Karthauser wrote:
A question that always baffled me (I'm fairly easy to baffle) is why we've
got some numbers defined as both udp and tcp when the service type is only
one or the other. Does anyone know?
Probably because the IANA specifies them
Dominic Mitchell wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 09:04:20AM +0100, Josef Karthauser wrote:
A question that always baffled me (I'm fairly easy to baffle) is why we've
got some numbers defined as both udp and tcp when the service type is only
one or the other. Does anyone know?
Probably
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 12:11:39PM -0700, Doug wrote:
Dominic Mitchell wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 09:04:20AM +0100, Josef Karthauser wrote:
A question that always baffled me (I'm fairly easy to baffle) is why we've
got some numbers defined as both udp and tcp when the service type
Josef Karthauser wrote:
Ok - but it's a bit misleading having both values in /etc/services..
Shouldn't be:
http 80/tcpwww www-http #World Wide Web HTTP
http 80/udpwww www-http #World Wide Web HTTP
Should be:
http 80/tcpwww
On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, Josef Karthauser wrote:
Ok - but it's a bit misleading having both values in /etc/services..
Shouldn't be:
http 80/tcpwww www-http #World Wide Web HTTP
http 80/udpwww www-http #World Wide Web HTTP
Should be:
http
On 26 Jul 1999, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
Sheldon Hearn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I plan to mention in the comments for each service in /etc/services, the
latest RFC describing the service.
Good idea.
H... I'm not sure what this gets us. Wouldn't it be better to
place this
: Sheldon Hearn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: I plan to mention in the comments for each service in /etc/services, the
: latest RFC describing the service.
:
: Good idea.
:
: H... I'm not sure what this gets us. Wouldn't it be better to
:place this kind of information in the man page
On 26 Jul 1999, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
Sheldon Hearn sheld...@uunet.co.za writes:
I plan to mention in the comments for each service in /etc/services, the
latest RFC describing the service.
Good idea.
H... I'm not sure what this gets us. Wouldn't it be better to
place
: Sheldon Hearn sheld...@uunet.co.za writes:
: I plan to mention in the comments for each service in /etc/services, the
: latest RFC describing the service.
:
: Good idea.
:
: H... I'm not sure what this gets us. Wouldn't it be better to
:place this kind of information in the man page
On 26 Jul 1999 12:59:57 +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
Don't. Instead, put it in a separate rfc(7) man page which you refer
to in the services(5) man page.
Cool! :-)
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the
Sheldon Hearn sheld...@uunet.co.za writes:
I plan to mention in the comments for each service in /etc/services, the
latest RFC describing the service.
Good idea.
I also plan to mention in the manpage
for services(5) the e-mail address to which requests for
On 26 Jul 1999 12:59:57 +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
Don't. Instead, put it in a separate rfc(7) man page which you refer
to in the services(5) man page.
Cool! :-)
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chris Costello writes:
:Are you going to be listing all the RFCs that apply? For
: example, DNS is 1033, 1034, and 1035, and NNTP is 0850 and 0977.
DNS is also 1123 and a few others in the 2xxx range. Then again, a
lot are 1123 :-) NNTP should just list 977,
In message 19990724082555.a40...@holly.dyndns.org Chris Costello writes:
:Are you going to be listing all the RFCs that apply? For
: example, DNS is 1033, 1034, and 1035, and NNTP is 0850 and 0977.
DNS is also 1123 and a few others in the 2xxx range. Then again, a
lot are 1123 :-) NNTP
Hi folks,
I plan to mention in the comments for each service in /etc/services, the
latest RFC describing the service. I also plan to mention in the manpage
for services(5) the e-mail address to which requests for "How do I get
the RFCs" should be sent.
If anyone is worried that I'll get RFC
On Sat, Jul 24, 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
Hi folks,
I plan to mention in the comments for each service in /etc/services, the
latest RFC describing the service. I also plan to mention in the manpage
for services(5) the e-mail address to which requests for "How do I get
the RFCs" should
On Sat, 24 Jul 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
Hi folks,
I plan to mention in the comments for each service in /etc/services, the
latest RFC describing the service. I also plan to mention in the manpage
for services(5) the e-mail address to which requests for "How do I get
the RFCs" should
On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 08:25:55 EST, Chris Costello wrote:
Are you going to be listing all the RFCs that apply? For
example, DNS is 1033, 1034, and 1035, and NNTP is 0850 and 0977.
I doubt I'll be listing obsoleted RFCs. :-)
I'll do the best I can. Send me private mail if you'd like to
Hi folks,
I plan to mention in the comments for each service in /etc/services, the
latest RFC describing the service. I also plan to mention in the manpage
for services(5) the e-mail address to which requests for How do I get
the RFCs should be sent.
If anyone is worried that I'll get RFC
On Sat, Jul 24, 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
Hi folks,
I plan to mention in the comments for each service in /etc/services, the
latest RFC describing the service. I also plan to mention in the manpage
for services(5) the e-mail address to which requests for How do I get
the RFCs should be
On Sat, 24 Jul 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
Hi folks,
I plan to mention in the comments for each service in /etc/services, the
latest RFC describing the service. I also plan to mention in the manpage
for services(5) the e-mail address to which requests for How do I get
the RFCs should be
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
