[cups.development] [RFE] STR #2142: please implement BrowseBindor similar option

[Michael Sweet]

Alexey Toptygin wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, Michael Sweet wrote:
> 
>> [STR Closed w/o Resolution]
>>
>> Given the difficulties with implementing this efficiently (we'd need to
>> create multiple browse sockets and handle routing errors for packets sent
>> on the wrong interfaces), it is unlikely we will ever add support for
>> BrowseBind or BrowseListen.
> 
> I wasn't suggesting you support multiple browse bindings, only that you 
> change the one you have to optionally bind to something other than 
> INADDR_ANY. That is possible without a lot of work, no?

No, that's not possible without a lot of work, and it would
effectively break things in unpredictable ways.

Like I said, BrowseAllow, BrowseDeny, and BrowseOrder are the
directives we provide to limit discovered printers to particular
hosts, domains, or networks.

-- 
______________________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Easy Software Products           mike at easysw dot com
Internet Printing and Document Software          http://www.easysw.com