From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Mar 15 18:21:51 2010
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 570EE106564A
	for <freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org>; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:21:51 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from luigi@onelab2.iet.unipi.it)
Received: from onelab2.iet.unipi.it (onelab2.iet.unipi.it [131.114.59.238])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E0D58FC0C
	for <freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org>; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:21:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by onelab2.iet.unipi.it (Postfix, from userid 275)
	id C4D3773106; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:31:32 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:31:32 +0100
From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it>
To: Oliver Fromme <olli@lurza.secnetix.de>
Message-ID: <20100315183132.GA94552@onelab2.iet.unipi.it>
References: <201003091436.o29EaFQi048887@lurza.secnetix.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <201003091436.o29EaFQi048887@lurza.secnetix.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Small problem with "ipfw list"
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions <freebsd-ipfw.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ipfw>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:21:51 -0000

On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 03:36:15PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Just a question:  Is the output from "ipfw list" supposed
> to be in the same rule format that is accepted as input?
> If that's the case, then there is a small bug:
> 
> # ipfw add 100 allow ip from any to '{' 1.1.1.1 or 2.2.2.2 '}'
> 00100 allow ip from any to '{' 1.1.1.1 or dst-ip 2.2.2.2 '}'

ok this should be fixed now in head (revision 205179)

cheers
luigi