Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!cc.tut.fi!cc.tut.fi!kmk From: kmk@cc.tut.fi (Kai 'Kaizzu' Kein{nen) Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail Subject: Re: More problems with sendmail/IDA and DECnet Message-ID: Date: 11 Jun 91 22:50:15 GMT References: <1991Jun10.182322.24341@ulowell.ulowell.edu> <1991Jun10.214235.23180@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1991Jun11.173526.15436@njitgw.njit.edu> <1991Jun11.182958.18722@mp.cs.niu.edu> Reply-To: kmk@cc.tut.fi (Kai 'Kaizzu' Kein{nen) Distribution: comp Organization: Tampere U of Tech, Finland Lines: 17 In-reply-to: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu's message of 11 Jun 91 18:29:58 GMT On 11 Jun 91 18:29:58 GMT, rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) said: Neil> Or perhaps the whole idea of using that file (/etc/svc.conf) Neil> is wrong. Could it be that the appropriate order for Neil> interactive commands like telnet and ftp should different from Neil> the order in non-interactive processes such as sending mail? Well, in RISC/os (at least from 4.50 on, haven't checked the old ones) a user or even process may override the order with an environment variable called VIS_SERVICES (the concept as a whole is called VIS, Virtual Information Service). I just don't somehow like the idea that a user may say that 'su' does its getpwent():s from NIS iff the user so wishes, though... (I know, this has nothing to do with sendmail. We're happily running 5.65b+IDA1.4.3 here. Thanks for a great Sendmail.mc, Neil!) -- ------------------------------------------------------ - Kai 'Kaizzu' Kein{nen < - > kmk@cc.tut.fi - - Tampere University of Technology, Computing Center - ------------------------------------------------------