On Tuesday, Nov 19, 2002, at 16:39 US/Eastern, Greywolf wrote:
> Is it me, or does anyone else find the requirement and specification=20=

> for
> hosts.lpd to be archaic?

I agree.

> I have a DHCP setup, and I really don't want to have to specify all =
250
> hosts in the range as being allowed to use the printer.  I find the=20
> fact
> that hosts.lpd is actually required.  That just seems really silly; in
> the absence of hosts.lpd, it should Just Print, especially given the
> ability to listen on a specific interface.

I partly agree.  I disagree in that I believe in the default=20
configuration lpd should run in a secure manner.  That is, the -s=20
(listen only on UNIX domain sockets, no implicit TCP listen) should be=20=

the default.  I agree that once you add "-b myhost" to the command line=20=

it should listen to everything sent to that address, not just those=20
listed explicitly in hosts.lpd.

> In particular, it would be really nice for hosts.lpd to be able to=20
> handle
> a network/mask combination, or some other method of access control for
> lpd.

I agree fully.

jf
--=20
John Franklin
franklin@elfie.org
ICBM: 35=B043'56"N 78=B053'27"W