From owner-freebsd-current Thu Jan 16 17:27:51 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id RAA00294 for current-outgoing; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 17:27:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from who.cdrom.com (who.cdrom.com [204.216.27.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id RAA00285 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 17:27:49 -0800 (PST) From: proff@suburbia.net Received: from pdx1.world.net (pdx1.world.net [192.243.32.18]) by who.cdrom.com (8.7.5/8.6.11) with ESMTP id RAA01650 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 17:27:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from suburbia.net (suburbia.net [203.4.184.1]) by pdx1.world.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA16564 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 17:27:40 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 15898 invoked by uid 110); 17 Jan 1997 01:26:23 -0000 Message-ID: <19970117012623.15897.qmail@suburbia.net> Subject: Re: ipfw patches to test In-Reply-To: <199701161838.SAA20186@veda.is> from Adam David at "Jan 16, 97 06:38:35 pm" To: adam@veda.is (Adam David) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 12:26:23 +1100 (EST) Cc: phk@critter.DK.tfs.COM, freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL28 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > I wouldn't. I would prefer a "not from". Shell symbols should > > be avoided in the ipfw grammer, which is designed to be > > human readable in english. > > > > Cheers, > > Julian > > It would be a simple matter to revise these patches to use "from [not] " > instead of "from [!]". Purists would complain that "from !192.168.23.0" is > ugly syntax anyway, just as I strongly dislike "!from 192.168.23.0". Well, no, it wouldn't actually because you may have a host called "not", this is why I suggest "not from", appart from the fact that "from not" is not gramatical. Cheers, Julian