Re: CF: Re:Banning players

[Robert Brockway <robert@blake.humbug.org.au>]

On Wed, 9 Dec 1998, Mark Wedel wrote:

>  I didn't think tcp wrappers would handle a case where there was only
> one daemon program yet possible multiple connections.  In
> fact, the man page supports that - one to one mapping onto 
> executable files.

Ah, I see.  I didn't realise this, but it makes sense given that almost
all processes launched by inetd fork copies of themselves to handle
incoming connections.

>  Since crossfire is a persistent program, you either need crossfire to
> handle it, or write some program that intercepts it if it allowed, just
> acts as a proxy (gets traffic in, sends it to crossfire).  But this
> then creates as many proxy programs running as people connected to the
> server.

I prefer the idea of the proxy intercepting data going to the port and
processing the data from there.  I don't see multiple proxy daemons
running as a huge problem unless the number got _really_ large, as they
would use shared memory, etc.
 
>  It really comes down to what is needed.  For anything in crossfire,
>  you can make some extremely sophisticated and nice way of doing it.
> But if a simpler method does the job, lets use that - if people have that
> much time to be spending on crossfire, I can think of many more
> important things to fix up than an ultra sophisticated way of banning
> certain sites.

I agree.  Do you think putting it in the server will be simpler?
Cheers,
	-Robert

--Robert Brockway B.Sc.  Email: robert@blake.humbug.org.au
                                robert@humbug.org.au, r.brockway@uq.net.au
			 WWW:   http://www.humbug.org.au/~robert
			 Founder of HUMBUG (http://www.humbug.org.au)

-
[you can put yourself on the announcement list only or unsubscribe altogether
by sending an email stating your wishes to crossfire-request@ifi.uio.no]