From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Jan  8 16:51:49 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id QAA23444
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 16:51:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [192.216.222.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA23432
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 16:51:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA26168; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 16:49:52 -0800
To: Joe Greco <jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com>
cc: hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Using `ping' to diagnose network connections reasonable? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 08 Jan 1996 11:03:51 CST."
             <199601081703.LAA05891@brasil.moneng.mei.com> 
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 1996 16:49:52 -0800
Message-ID: <26166.821148592@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> By the way, PLEASE please make sure that any checks you add can be BYPASSED
> for those of us who occasionally work in "just functional enough" network

I think this is pretty much the only way off the horns of my dilemma.
I'll simply make each error box come up with ``Re-enter config info,
Abort or Proceed anyway?'' dialog.  Chosing proceed will ignore the
error.  I was inspired by DOS.  :-)

					Jordan