In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Vivek Khera writes:
: Much more slick! I like the idea of making rcmd(3) be ssh-aware, with
: fallback to rsh for compatibility. It seems the only change I'll need
: to make to my backup process is to do it as a user of group operator
: rather than as root. Not a
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Francisco Reyes" writes:
: UPDATING and I guess that I didn't have it at that point.. I am
I guess it doesn't help that the UPDATING file says to read the whole
UPDATING file before proceeding :-)
On a more serious note, the UPDATING file is now mentioned in the
h
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> James Housley writes:
: blaine wrote:
: > Umm, why not just use openbsd if security is the primary concern?
: >
: Why shouldn't we provide the best level of security possible, using
: OpenBSD as a target?
We should be targetting things at a much higher level than
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Vivek Khera writes:
: Wow! If voting is considered, I vote for such a patch to be included.
: It makes sense considering that ssh is now part of the core system.
Actually, it turns out to be a bad idea and we should use, I think,
the more generic rcmdsh from OpenBS
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Nathan Ahlstrom writes:
: This PR may be of interest.
: http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=15830
Actually, no. It isn't that interesting. More interesting would be
something like the following which does it for all rcmd based things.
It is out of OpenBSD,
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 15:07:15 +0200, Neil Blakey-Milner wrote:
>(and when I'm through with it, sendmail won't be listening on port 25 by
>default either *evil.grin*)
So where will it be listening?
Any plans on moving this part of stable on the long term?
francisco
Moderator of the Corporate BS
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 15:41:45 +0100, Nik Clayton wrote:
>> I know this is currently in "current", but won't this eventually
>> make it to stable?
>
>Maybe. I would have thought that's unlikely though. However, even if
>it is, there'll be a HEADS UP posted to this mailing list, so you'll be
>awar
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Vivek Khera writes:
: s> Surely rmt could work over ssh?
:
: Apparently not with its current implementation. It also must fallback
: to using rcmd(3) for compatibility with other systems, if one were to
: implement the ssh layer.
OpenBSD's dump has this functional
On 24-Aug-2000, Francisco Reyes wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 10:11:03 +0200 (SAST), fingers wrote:
> >but the first thing I do is disable them and kill 'em dead.
>
> Perhaps this could be an installation flag.
Personally, I think the change is a wonderful move. I frankly find it to
be a bit of
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 10:13:52 +0100, Nik Clayton wrote:
>> What was the reason for these daemons been set to not start?
>
>Now, if you have an empty /etc/rc.conf then (in theory) no network services
>are running. This also means that if you want to find out what services are
>started at boot time
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 10:11:03 +0200 (SAST), fingers wrote:
>Hi
>
>> What was the reason for these daemons been set to not start?
>> Wouldn't this "break" working machines?
>
>I don't know what percentage of installers are doing the same,
That is the problem. Most likely nobody knows the percentag
On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 01:03:50AM -0400, Francisco Reyes wrote:
> On a recent email Peter Jeremy wrote:
>
> >..., rc.conf was recently changed (in -current) to not
> >start inetd, portmap or sendmail. If you are actually relying on
> >any of these daemons, and you actually notice the differenc
Hi
> What was the reason for these daemons been set to not start?
> Wouldn't this "break" working machines?
I don't know what percentage of installers are doing the same, but the
first thing I do is disable them and kill 'em dead.
--Rob
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "un
13 matches
Mail list logo
