Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msunews!caen!hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!matlock.mindspring.com!usenet From: Robert Sanders <rsanders@mindspring.com> Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: /etc/services Date: 24 Aug 1995 11:21:24 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. Lines: 15 Sender: rsanders@hrothgar.mindspring.com Message-ID: <87spmr8gzv.fsf@hrothgar.mindspring.com> References: <41gtu9$knu@news.bu.edu> <87virn9aoy.fsf@hrothgar.mindspring.com> <41htce$91l@news.bu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: hrothgar.mindspring.com In-reply-to: mi@cs.bu.edu's message of 24 Aug 1995 13:04:13 GMT X-Newsreader: (ding) Gnus v0.99.11 On 24 Aug 1995 13:04:13 GMT, mi@cs.bu.edu (Mikhail Teterin) said: > Aga, that explains the current behavior, but does not seem reasonable... > Why can not same service sit and wait for few ports? Seems like a design > problem to me... Define "service". Telnet can sit and wait on as many ports as you wish, you just have to give it as many names. Name them something like telnet-23, telnet-4355, ..., telnet-X. I'll agree that it isn't convenient to have to modify *two* files to do that, but there's no real loss of functionality. Well, except for the "internal" services, but there's not much need to put those on alternate ports. Regards, -- Robert