[ntp:hackers] Re: configuration file rewrite
todd.glassey at worldnet.att.net
Fri Mar 3 06:36:53 UTC 2006
Isnt there a larger issue as to how the "peering policy" of an application
works when you have to factor in firewalling as well. There is a valid point
in that the FW itself determines connectability and the port of connection,
so why then does the application need the ability to rethink the connection
rules set therein, and at what expense, i.e. how much better would the NTP
service perform if this secuity or NTP policy of Service reliance and
peering if it left all connection sorting to the FW and system?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hal Murray" <hmurray at suespammers.org>
To: "Harlan Stenn" <stenn at ntp.isc.org>
Cc: <hackers at ntp.isc.org>; <mills at udel.edu>
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 9:11 PM
Subject: Re: [ntp:hackers] Re: configuration file rewrite
> > Sometimes people list servers that they wish to monitor but they do
> > not want to exchange time with them. There must be a way to continue
> > to get this behavior.
> Unless I'm confused, you can't monitor another system unless you can get
> packets back from it.
> I can't think of any use for a server or peer entry if you won't accept
> packets from that system.
> I expect you are thinking of the "noselect" keyword on the server config
> line. It goes through all the polling and logging, but skips that server
> when it gets to the selection stage. "monitor" might be a useful alias.
> That's what I use it for.
> The suespammers.org mail server is located in California. So are all my
> other mailboxes. Please do not send unsolicited bulk e-mail or
> commercial e-mail to my suespammers.org address or any of my other
> These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam.
> hackers mailing list
> hackers at support.ntp.org
More information about the hackers