Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:25:57 -0700 From: "M.R.Murphy" <mrm@Mole.ORG> To: julian@whistle.com, tom@sdf.com Cc: hackers@freefall.freebsd.org, julian@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: I have 2 patches Message-ID: <199608070425.VAA27899@meerkat.mole.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > The patches to inetd are not extensive. I'd rather > run with the standard item than have to introduce > an external item into our product.. > If you lookat the patch, and still think that it is too large > then I'd be surprised.. > > The patches to inetd are not extensive. I'd rather > run with the standard item than have to introduce > an external item into our product.. > If you lookat the patch, and still think that it is too large > then I'd be surprised.. > > The patches to inetd are not extensive. I'd rather > run with the standard item than have to introduce > an external item into our product.. Wouldn't we all :-) > If you lookat the patch, and still think that it is too large > then I'd be surprised.. > > It makes quite a difference to the work we need to do It means a security audit of the changes for us. I've no opinion yet on the changes; I haven't examined them in detail. They look short enough to evaluate pretty quickly. I _really_ appreciate that Julian asked before just blasting away. Thanks. I'll also add that initially it looks like all of the functionality can be achieved with TIS FWTK without changing inetd or ftpd. And more :-) -- Mike Murphy mrm@Mole.ORG +1 619 598 5874 Better is the enemy of Good
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199608070425.VAA27899>