> But...but... ITS SUCH AN EYE-SORE!
all depends on what image of professionalism freebsd thinks it is trying to
project.
randy
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
On Thu, 27 Jan 2000 03:57:51 +1100, Andy Farkas wrote:
> > No. In the absence of a hosts.allow file, hosts_access(3) denies all.
>
> Not according to what I read in 'man 5 hosts_access' - especially the
> second paragraph titled "ACCESS CONTROL FILES".
Wtf?! You're right. I'm frightened no
On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> > Change it to hosts.allow.sample then? No hosts.allow file is essentially
> > the same as the ALL:ALL:allow rule, no?
>
> No. In the absence of a hosts.allow file, hosts_access(3) denies all.
Not according to what I read in 'man 5 hosts_access' -
On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 02:02:36 +1100, Andy Farkas wrote:
> > So you'll notice that this file is an example and *demands* your
> > attention in configuring your system properly.
>
> Change it to hosts.allow.sample then? No hosts.allow file is essentially
> the same as the ALL:ALL:allow rule, no?
On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, David O'Brien wrote:
> > What is the reason for putting a giant "Example!" in hosts.allow?
>
> So you'll notice that this file is an example and *demands* your
> attention in configuring your system properly.
Change it to hosts.allow.sample then? No hosts.allow file is e
On 25-Jan-00 John Baldwin wrote:
>
> On 25-Jan-00 David O'Brien wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 25, 2000 at 03:03:32PM +1100, Andy Farkas wrote:
>>> Here is a patch: (please notice the spelling correction)
>>
>> Where? I just ran ispell on src/etc/hosts.allow and it didn't catch
>> anything.
>
> not -
On 25-Jan-00 David O'Brien wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2000 at 03:03:32PM +1100, Andy Farkas wrote:
>> Here is a patch: (please notice the spelling correction)
>
> Where? I just ran ispell on src/etc/hosts.allow and it didn't catch
> anything.
not -> no I think.. it was more of a gramma gotcha t
On Tue, 25 Jan 2000 01:46:01 CST, Kevin Day wrote:
> A more direct patch would have been:
>
> -# NOTE: The hosts.deny file is not longer used. Instead, put both 'allow'
> +# NOTE: The hosts.deny file is no longer used. Instead, put both 'allow'
I'm concerned about the authenticity of this c
>
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2000 at 03:03:32PM +1100, Andy Farkas wrote:
> > Here is a patch: (please notice the spelling correction)
>
> Where? I just ran ispell on src/etc/hosts.allow and it didn't catch
> anything.
A more direct patch would have been:
-# NOTE: The hosts.deny file is not longer us
On Tue, Jan 25, 2000 at 03:03:32PM +1100, Andy Farkas wrote:
> Here is a patch: (please notice the spelling correction)
Where? I just ran ispell on src/etc/hosts.allow and it didn't catch
anything.
--
-- David([EMAIL PROTECTED])
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsu
On Tue, Jan 25, 2000 at 03:03:32PM +1100, Andy Farkas wrote:
> What is the reason for putting a giant "Example!" in hosts.allow?
So you'll notice that this file is an example and *demands* your
attention in configuring your system properly.
> I note that it was committed at 3 o'clock in the mor
On Tue, Jan 25, 2000 at 03:03:32PM +1100, Andy Farkas wrote:
>
>
> What is the reason for putting a giant "Example!" in hosts.allow?
>
> I note that it was committed at 3 o'clock in the morning... was someone
> trying to make a point?
>
> What other files have this type of gross bit-bloat in
12 matches
Mail list logo
