From owner-freebsd-security Sun Jun 23 05:46:29 1996 Return-Path: owner-security Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id FAA24445 for security-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jun 1996 05:46:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from palmer.demon.co.uk (palmer.demon.co.uk [158.152.50.150]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id FAA24427 for ; Sun, 23 Jun 1996 05:45:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from palmer.demon.co.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by palmer.demon.co.uk (sendmail/PALMER-2) with ESMTP id NAA23933 for ; Sun, 23 Jun 1996 13:42:58 +0100 (BST) Prev-Resent: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 13:42:56 +0100 Prev-Resent: "security@freebsd.org " Received: from punt.demon.co.uk (punt.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.73]) by palmer.demon.co.uk (sendmail/PALMER-2) with SMTP id UAA19600 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 1996 20:48:21 +0100 (BST) Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net by mailstore for gary@palmer.demon.co.uk id 835472615:02148:0; Sat, 22 Jun 96 20:43:35 BST Received: from ceres.brunel.ac.uk ([134.83.176.3]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id ac01655; 22 Jun 96 20:42 +0100 Received: from freefall.freebsd.org by ceres.brunel.ac.uk with SMTP (PP); Sat, 22 Jun 1996 20:39:28 +0100 Received: from zen.nash.org (nash.pr.mcs.net [204.95.47.72]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA04608 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 1996 12:39:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from alex@localhost) by zen.nash.org (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA12916; Sat, 22 Jun 1996 14:38:52 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 14:38:52 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199606221938.OAA12916@zen.nash.org> From: Alex Nash To: gpalmer@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: taob@io.org Subject: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.org Reply-to: nash@mcs.com Resent-To: security@FreeBSD.ORG Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 13:42:57 +0100 Resent-Message-ID: <23931.835533777@palmer.demon.co.uk> Resent-From: Gary Palmer Sender: owner-security@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > I'm setting up a FreeBSD-based firewall here, and my original plan > > was to go with IPFW in the kernel. However, it seems there isn't any > > recent documentation for it (both the man page and the handbook entry > > are out of date). > > I thought Alex Nash recently updated both? Have you tried our WWW > pages to get the latest version? :( Unfortunately not. When I submitted my ipfw changes into -current, my understanding was that 2.1.5 was about 2 weeks from being solidified. The dilemma was whether I should risk bringing in mass changes into -stable. After discussing this with Poul, I decided against doing so. -stable has all the latest bug fixes, but lacks the updated documentation. I'm sitting on some handbook changes because I didn't want the handbook to *seem* up to date, but really only cover -current. If anyone has suggestions on where we should take -stable, I'd be happy to hear them. If it looks like 2.1.5 will be delayed long enough, we can see about bringing -stable up to the level of -current. Alex