Re: [fossil-users] OT: Why we should NEVER use inetd/xinetd

2016-10-28 Thread Richie Adler
Nathaniel Reindl decía, en el mensaje "Re: [fossil-users] OT: Why we should NEVER use inetd/xinetd" del 28/10/2016 08:23:28: > From my perspective, this thread has far outlasted its usefulness and has > become an exercise in self-satisfaction for those who prefer to write

Re: [fossil-users] OT: Why we should NEVER use inetd/xinetd

2016-10-28 Thread Nathaniel Reindl
> On Oct 28, 2016, at 02:29, Luca Ferrari wrote: > No, I do. > You should go trolling somewhere else. Just checking in. It seems that my decision to mute this thread within my mailer immediately after my single response was a good idea. From my perspective, this thread

Re: [fossil-users] OT: Why we should NEVER use inetd/xinetd

2016-10-25 Thread K. Fossil user
Hi, >« The security concerns come in as a result of not paying attention to the >details of the implementation » Oh I forgot this. In the past, it was my tought. But as the expert explain to us, it is not only implementation. Theses days, we all hear about DDOS that could not be stopped, not

Re: [fossil-users] OT: Why we should NEVER use inetd/xinetd

2016-10-23 Thread Ron W
Cc: > Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 19:56:51 -0400 > Subject: Re: [fossil-users] OT: Why we should NEVER use inetd/xinetd > > On Oct 22, 2016, at 17:23, K. Fossil user <ticketpersonnal-fossil@yahoo. > fr> wrote: > > 2/ Xinetd is old (four years ?) so may be not secure. > > xine

Re: [fossil-users] OT: Why we should NEVER use inetd/xinetd

2016-10-22 Thread Nathaniel Reindl
> On Oct 22, 2016, at 17:23, K. Fossil user > wrote: > P.S. : I will never understand why people don't know about security issue > when it comes to inetd. Aha, so this was a security concern. I figured just as much. Please read on. (: > I was explained to