From owner-cvs-share  Sat Sep 14 12:03:23 1996
Return-Path: owner-cvs-share
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id MAA01844
          for cvs-share-outgoing; Sat, 14 Sep 1996 12:03:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from veda.is (root@ubiq.veda.is [193.4.230.60])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA01834;
          Sat, 14 Sep 1996 12:03:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from adam@localhost) by veda.is (8.7.5/8.7.3) id TAA10011; Sat, 14 Sep 1996 19:03:07 GMT
From: Adam David <adam@veda.is>
Message-Id: <199609141903.TAA10011@veda.is>
Subject: Re: cvs commit:  src/share/doc/handbook firewalls.sgml
To: alex@freefall.freebsd.org (Alex Nash)
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 19:03:04 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-all@freefall.freebsd.org,
        cvs-share@freefall.freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <199609141718.KAA25786@freefall.freebsd.org> from Alex Nash at "Sep 14, 96 10:18:13 am"
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL22 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-cvs-share@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> alex        96/09/14 10:18:13
> 
>   Modified:    share/doc/handbook  firewalls.sgml
>   Log:
>   Revert the description of -N to its original form.  It was right the
>   first time.
>   
>   Revision  Changes    Path
>   1.12      +2 -2      src/share/doc/handbook/firewalls.sgml
> 

then why does the manpage point out that service names are not accepted as
valid port specifications, and why does the implementation explicitly reject
any attempt to specify a service by name instead of by number?

Adam