Re: feature-request: libwrap

On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 10:32:58PM +, Tim Potter wrote: ... >I thought the 'hosts allow' and 'hosts deny' code was taken from >Samba, which in turn was taken (with permission - see the code) >from the tcpwrappers code. I think that's most frequently used to restrict access to areas that can b

Re: feature-request: libwrap

Dave Dykstra writes: > > I agree with this... In fact, it isn't even difficult to add tcpwrappers > > support to rsync... What would it be? A few lines of code? I think the > > That's a good reason, and I would think that if somebody submitted a good > quality patch to support libwrap it would

Re: feature-request: libwrap

On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 03:20:58PM -0400, Scott Adkins wrote: > --On Wednesday, April 25, 2001 3:06 PM -0400 "David N. Blank-Edelman" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Dave Dykstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> What are the advantages of that over rsyncd.conf's "hosts allow" and > >> "ho

Re: feature-request: libwrap

--On Wednesday, April 25, 2001 3:06 PM -0400 "David N. Blank-Edelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dave Dykstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> What are the advantages of that over rsyncd.conf's "hosts allow" and >> "hosts deny"? > > The main advantage would be the ability for sites that alread

Re: feature-request: libwrap

Dave Dykstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What are the advantages of that over rsyncd.conf's "hosts allow" and > "hosts deny"? The main advantage would be the ability for sites that already use tcpwrappers to centralize their network authorization mechanism. Having this information spread out i

Re: feature-request: libwrap

On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 01:28:57PM -0700, Bill Campbell wrote: > On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 11:02:19AM -0500, Dave Dykstra wrote: > ... > >What are the advantages of that over rsyncd.conf's "hosts allow" and > >"hosts deny"? > > > >I don't know Andrew's reasons for implementing those instead of linki

Re: feature-request: libwrap

On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 11:02:19AM -0500, Dave Dykstra wrote: ... >What are the advantages of that over rsyncd.conf's "hosts allow" and >"hosts deny"? > >I don't know Andrew's reasons for implementing those instead of linking >with libwrap. Could it be that most people run rsync out of inetd.conf

Re: feature-request: libwrap

On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 01:02:03PM +0200, Philipp Bachmann wrote: > Hey, > > it was nice if rsync could be linked against "libwrap" (inside the > tcp_wrappers-tool) by Wietse Venema > . If run as a stand > alone-daemon, not from inetd, you could d

feature-request: libwrap

Hey, it was nice if rsync could be linked against "libwrap" (inside the tcp_wrappers-tool) by Wietse Venema . If run as a stand alone-daemon, not from inetd, you could deny access from certain hosts to rsync this way. A patch shouldn't be too h