From owner-freebsd-current  Mon Jan 12 19:04:14 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA18410
          for current-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jan 1998 19:04:14 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current)
Received: from smtp04.primenet.com (smtp04.primenet.com [206.165.6.134])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA18334
          for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 12 Jan 1998 19:03:46 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from tlambert@usr01.primenet.com)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by smtp04.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA00303;
	Mon, 12 Jan 1998 19:54:08 -0700 (MST)
Received: from usr01.primenet.com(206.165.6.201)
 via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpd000241; Mon Jan 12 19:53:58 1998
Received: (from tlambert@localhost)
	by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA17781;
	Mon, 12 Jan 1998 19:53:52 -0700 (MST)
From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
Message-Id: <199801130253.TAA17781@usr01.primenet.com>
Subject: Re: Commit Approval (was Re: Firewall in kernel? - Found it! )
To: mike@smith.net.au (Mike Smith)
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 02:53:51 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: shimon@simon-shapiro.org, mike@smith.net.au, thyerm@camtech.net.au,
        current@FreeBSD.ORG, Studded@dal.net, kong@kkk.ml.org, nash@Mcs.Net
In-Reply-To: <199801121334.AAA00363@word.smith.net.au> from "Mike Smith" at Jan 13, 98 00:04:23 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> Why is it that prohibition is so much easier to advocate than 
> commonsense?

Because you can automatically enforce the former, but not the latter.

Is this a trick question?


					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.