Index: [Article Count Order] [Thread]

Date:  Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:06:33 +1100
From:  Greg Kuhnert <greg.kuhnert (at mark) theanchoragesylvania.com>
Subject:  [coba-e:16123] Re: [BlueOnyx:02791] Re: DFix note
To:  BlueOnyx General Mailing List <blueonyx (at mark) blueonyx.it>,        coba-e (at mark) bluequartz.org
Message-Id:  <4AEFF299.40104 (at mark) theanchoragesylvania.com>
In-Reply-To:  <1257219582.18697.8.camel (at mark) c102.home.com>
References:  <002201ca5c2a$18d207c0$6401a8c0 (at mark) HPPAVILION> <1257219582.18697.8.camel (at mark) c102.home.com>
X-Mail-Count: 16123

Gerald Waugh wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-11-02 at 21:05 -0500, Darrell D. Mobley wrote:
>   
>> For those people using DFix, and have IP窶冱 whitelisted
>> in /etc/hosts.allow, you should know that DFix throws away hosts.allow
>> entries that have comments after the entry.
>>     
>
> Comments in the /etc/hosts.allow are very similar to shell scripts where
> each comment line starts with a hash mark (#) and extends to the end of
> the line. There is one significant difference in how comments are
> handled in hosts.allow and shell scripts is that comments are not
> allowed after a rule. The following example shows valid uses of comments
> in the file.
>
> 	# this is a valid comment
> 	portmap : 1.2.3.4 : deny
> 	# so is this
> 	
> 	sshd : 9.8.7.6 : deny	# but not this one
>   
Hi All.

I have done a few tweaks in the source that will make it a little more 
forgiving to the formatting in hosts.allow. I wont bother releasing this 
just yet - its only a small tweak. It will be included in the next 
release (whenever that may be).

Regards,
Greg.

-- 

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   / \   Greg Kuhnert, gkuhnert (at mark) compassnetworks.com.au               |
| <  o  > Compass Networks - Pointing you in the right direction      |
|   \ /   Come see us for BlueQuartz / BlueOnyx modules & Support.    |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+