Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:04:08 -0800 From: Michael Sierchio <kudzu@tenebras.com> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> Cc: "Simon L. Nielsen" <simon@nitro.dk>, freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Sanity check in ipfw(8) Message-ID: <3E2D8B98.10809@tenebras.com> In-Reply-To: <20030121004353.GF351@nitro.dk> References: <20030121004353.GF351@nitro.dk> <20030120165940.A65713@xorpc.icir.org> <20030121012046.GG351@nitro.dk> <20030120173223.A83271@xorpc.icir.org> <20030121004353.GF351@nitro.dk> <3E2CE0FA.2080301@tenebras.com> <20030121095159.A61957@xorpc.icir.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Luigi Rizzo wrote: > On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 09:56:10PM -0800, Michael Sierchio wrote: > ... > > >>yes i honestly believe that it is better to avoid the userland code > >>being too smart. E.g. ipfw accepts things such as > >> > >> allow ip from any to any 53 > >> > >>which matches both tcp and udp to port 53 -- ipfw1 did not accept > >>this, and needed two rules for this very common thing. > > > >Shi'ite! Documentation? > > > well it's in the ipfw manpage. ... Yes, I guess it is. The problem is that the manpage attempts to document two commands which are syntactically and semantically different -- enough that they should be documented separately. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ipfw" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3E2D8B98.10809>