Yeah, that confirms my observations.  Thanks.

Aside: As far as running a seperate tcpserver process for every service,
doesn't that seem like a waste?  I know of tcpserver's reported benefits
over inetd/tcpd (hence my interest), but switching from a single inetd
instance to a whole host of often-idle tcpserver instances doesn't seem much
like progress to me.  IMHO.

-- 
Mark "T.C." Thomas
Datawarehouse Programmer
Hotel Information Technology
Cendant Corporation
mark.thomas@hit.cendant.com

-----Original Message-----
From: James Lee Bell [mailto:jbell@eai-healthcare.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 1:37 PM
To: plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
Subject: Re: tcpserver installation


Total newbie comment here, but a newbie who's been lurking on the qmail
list for months (where it's recommended to use tcpserver for pop and
smtp): Whatever ports your going to let tcpserver handle must be
commented out in inetd.conf so that they're free to be picked up. Then
restart inetd and tcpserver. And yes, you do run a separate instance of
tcpserver for each port.

As for running tcpserver "in place of tcpd from inetd.conf", don't think
that's possible. Correct me if I'm wrong but inetd is a wrapper the same
as tcpserver, so if a call to tcpserver is in inetd.conf, then everytime
inetd hears a packet on that port it's going to call the tcpserver
wrapper to use that port, ... I don't even want to try and diagram those
heebie jeebies.  You need to comment out of inetd.conf whatever port
you're going to use tcpserver for, then run an instance of tcpserver for
each port from one of the other startup files (which one is beyond my
knowledge base at the moment - anyone else?).

"Thomas, Mark" wrote:
> 
> I have a question for anyone who has installed tcpserver.  At first
glance,
> it looks like you have to run a seperate tcpserver process for every
> service/port.  Has anyone successfully configured tcpserver to work
with/in
> place of inetd?  I tried invoking it in place of tcpd from inetd.conf, but
> when tcpserver started it tried to bind to the port, and inetd was already
> bound to it.  What am I overlooking?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> --
> Mark "T.C." Thomas
> Datawarehouse Programmer
> Hotel Information Technology
> Cendant Corporation
> mark.thomas@hit.cendant.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Plug-discuss mailing list  -  Plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss

_______________________________________________
Plug-discuss mailing list  -  Plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss