Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 12:37:34 +0200 From: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za> To: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com>, Warner Losh <imp@village.org>, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: a BSD identd Message-ID: <92351.931689454@axl.noc.iafrica.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 11 Jul 1999 01:49:59 -0400." <Pine.BSF.4.10.9907110146520.13403-100000@janus.syracuse.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 11 Jul 1999 01:49:59 -0400, "Brian F. Feldman" wrote: > inetd already has the built-in equivalent to that. Maybe it's possible > to make a REAL ident (*cough* the one I wrote) an option, inetd has > that service off by default. That sounds much more like it. I will say that I suspect this is a bad move. The more I think about it, the more I think we don't want the kitchen sink in there. Inetd only offers a limited auth service to prevent delays in the servicing of requests from local users on remote hosts. Anyone who wants to use the auth service for other things should probably use a specialized piece of software to do that. I don't think inetd needs this functionality built in. I think that what you really want is pidentd imported into the base system. And while it's noble to want a GNU-free base system and I applaud efforts in that direction, you should probably slow down and read pidentd's license agreement. :-) Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with leaving pidentd as a port. > Then the user can select one of two lines for a real ident > service or a fake one. DES has some interesting ideas in this direction. Take a look at closed PR 11796 if and when you start thinking about how to implement this. Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?92351.931689454>