Re: revoke()?

James Mastros (root@jennifer-unix.dyn.ml.org)
Tue, 6 Jan 1998 00:05:09 -0500 (EST)


On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Matthew Kirkwood wrote:
> Hi,
>
[..]
> BSD revoke takes only a pathname. This is both dull and inflexible.
> Let's have some more arguments!
Umm... because then it takes away the idea of making porting easyer...
perhaps revoke_new?

[...]
> Matthew.
>
> PS. Is there any reason why I shouldn't hack /proc/PID/fd to show symlinks
> to "IP:port", or whatever? (Except for the fact that it would be ugly
> with my setup for ls --color :-)
Umm... I don't think thats possible withought some serious oddity. Also, I
don't like the format, try this on for size: (uppercase letters are literal)
UDP:port or TCP:port or TCP:my_ip:port->their_ip:port.

-=- James Mastros

-- 
  Agent K: Humans for the most part don't have a clue.  They don't need one
    or want one either.  They're happy.  They think they have a good read on
    things.
  Will Smith (not yet Agent J): But why the big secret?  People are smart;
    they can handle it.
  K: A person is smart; people are dumb, panicky animals and you know it.
     Fifteen hundred years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the center
     of the Universe.  Five hundred years ago, everybody knew that the Earth
     was flat.  Fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone in the
     Universe.  Just think what you'll know tomorrow.

-=- Men In Black (1997, Paramount)