From owner-freebsd-current  Mon Jul 19 18:29:35 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from rebel.net.au (rebel.rebel.net.au [203.20.69.66])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDB9A150CC
	for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 18:29:31 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from kkenn@rebel.net.au)
Received: from 203.20.69.74 (dialup-4.rebel.net.au [203.20.69.74])
          by rebel.net.au (8.8.5/8.8.4) with ESMTP
	  id KAA17104 for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 10:57:03 +0930
Received: (qmail 4600 invoked from network); 20 Jul 1999 01:10:03 -0000
Received: from localhost (kkenn@127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 20 Jul 1999 01:10:03 -0000
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 10:40:03 +0930 (CST)
From: Kris Kennaway <kkenn@rebel.net.au>
Reply-To: kkenn@rebel.net.au
To: Nik Clayton <nik@nothing-going-on.demon.co.uk>
Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Moving ipf(1) to ipf(8)?
In-Reply-To: <19990719224454.A52115@catkin.nothing-going-on.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9907201039320.3461-100000@morden.rebel.net.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Nik Clayton wrote:

> docs/7791 is of the opinion that ipf(1) should be moved to ipf(8), to
> (among other things) be consistent with ipfw(8).
> 
> Anyone care to comment one way or the other?

Definitely.

Kris



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message