Bug#324788: tcpd: No way to block depending on socket options

2006-08-27 Thread Marco d'Itri
On Aug 27, Teddy Hogeborn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No. Should I have? I am not a programmer. I am reporting a potentially useful missing feature, not volunteering to implement it. This is what wishlist bugs are for, are they not? Why are you closing the bug report? Have you forwarded

Bug#324788: tcpd: No way to block depending on socket options

2006-08-26 Thread Teddy Hogeborn
I use IPsec. I would like to block connections to a service if the client is not using IPsec (similar to only allowing IMAPS [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes: Send a patch, and test it well. Do you have any plan to work on this? No. Should I have? I am not a programmer. I am

Bug#324788: tcpd: No way to block depending on socket options

2006-08-17 Thread Marco d'Itri
On Aug 24, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I use IPsec. I would like to block connections to a service if the client is not using IPsec (similar to only allowing IMAPS and not Send a patch, and test it well. Do you have any plan to work on this? -- ciao, Marco signature.asc

Bug#324788: tcpd: No way to block depending on socket options

2005-08-23 Thread Teddy Hogeborn
Package: tcpd Version: 7.6.dbs-8 Severity: wishlist I use IPsec. I would like to block connections to a service if the client is not using IPsec (similar to only allowing IMAPS and not IMAP). IPsec use can be detected by a socket option (IP_IPSEC_POLICY). It would therefore be useful to me to

Bug#324788: tcpd: No way to block depending on socket options

2005-08-23 Thread Marco d'Itri
On Aug 24, Teddy Hogeborn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I use IPsec. I would like to block connections to a service if the client is not using IPsec (similar to only allowing IMAPS and not Send a patch, and test it well. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature