On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, John Gonzalez/netMDC admin wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Peter Samuel wrote:
>
> >I've never seen this. How? What operating system? What version of
> >inetd? You've got me curious now.
> >
> >Regards
> >Peter
> >--
>
> man inetd
>
> pop3 stream tcp nowait.120 root /v
> Peter van Dijk:
> Research shows that FreeBSD 4.0's inetd actually doesn't have these
> misfeatures anymore - it has a concurrency limit (yes, really!) and a
> max-connections-per-minute-per-remote-IP.
starting with at most 2.8.8, it has. freebsd 2.8.8 is my religion.
clemens
I'm not following???
On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, clemensF wrote:
>> John Gonzalez/netMDC admin:
>
>> On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Peter Samuel wrote:
>> >I've never seen this. How? What operating system? What version of
>> >inetd? You've got me curious now.
>>
>> man inetd
>
>this is one of those things. we ar
> John Gonzalez/netMDC admin:
> On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Peter Samuel wrote:
> >I've never seen this. How? What operating system? What version of
> >inetd? You've got me curious now.
>
> man inetd
this is one of those things. we are used to spend five minutes on
inetd.conf using vendor-supplied-tem
On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Peter Samuel wrote:
>I've never seen this. How? What operating system? What version of
>inetd? You've got me curious now.
>
>Regards
>Peter
>--
man inetd
pop3 stream tcp nowait.120 root /var/qmail/bin/tcp-env tcp-env..
--
___ _ __ _
On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 07:22:25PM +1000, Peter Samuel wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, John Gonzalez/netMDC admin wrote:
> >
> > While i agree with Peter that tcpserver is superior, i dont want people
> > getting the wrong idea of inetd.
> >
> > inetd by default has the above behaviour, but can be
On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, John Gonzalez/netMDC admin wrote:
>
> While i agree with Peter that tcpserver is superior, i dont want people
> getting the wrong idea of inetd.
>
> inetd by default has the above behaviour, but can be overridden in the
> configuration file to accept any number of connections
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5 Jun 00, at 12:02, John Gonzalez/netMDC admin wrote:
> inetd by default has the above behaviour, but can be overridden in the
> configuration file to accept any number of connections.
That's bad, too. I want to limit the number of live incoming
On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, Peter Samuel wrote:
>It has a rate limiting "feature" whereby it will stop servicing a port
>for 10 MINUTES if it thinks the rate of incoming connections is too
>high (I have flat lined a remote inetd with qmail-remote from a 14k4
>modem). tcpserver doesn't care about rate, it
> I run a relatively low traffic mailserver.
> It runs qmail smptd and pop3 from inetd.
> I hear all the time that inetd sucks, but i never hear any reasons why.
> So my question is: why does inetd sucks?
>
> /Magnus Näslund
It does not give the programs it runs any information
On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, Magnus Naeslund wrote:
> I run a relatively low traffic mailserver.
> It runs qmail smptd and pop3 from inetd.
> I hear all the time that inetd sucks, but i never hear any reasons why.
> So my question is: why does inetd sucks?
Two that immediately come to mind:
No inbuilt s
I run a relatively low traffic mailserver.
It runs qmail smptd and pop3 from inetd.
I hear all the time that inetd sucks, but i never hear any reasons why.
So my question is: why does inetd sucks?
/Magnus Näslund
12 matches
Mail list logo
