ntpd question

[Nathan Kinkade]

On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:08:42AM -0800, Joshua Lokken wrote:
> * Shaun T. Erickson <ste at ste-land.com> [2004-03-12 08:27]:
> > Matthew Seaman wrote:
> > 
> > >Unfortuately if you're going to run ntpd, you can't get rid of these:
> > >ntpd(8) will automatically bind to all interfaces on the system, and
> > >there are no controls within ntpd to control that.
> > 
> > Darn. Thanks for the suggestions! I was already controlling access to 
> > the port with my ipfilter firewall, and will continue to do so. I just 
> > believe in not letting anything bind to a port, that isn't required to.
> > 
> 
> If you're just keeping one machine's clock in sync,
> you could try using ntpdate rather than ntpd.
> 
> -- 
> Joshua

It is my understanding that ntpdate is deprecated and one should use
nptd with the '-q' option instead.

Nathan
-- 
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys D8527E49
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20040312/7bbd8fa7/attachment.bin