From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Jan 28 6:55:23 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from post.mail.nl.demon.net (post-11.mail.nl.demon.net [194.159.73.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D94A737B400 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 06:55:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from [212.238.194.207] (helo=tanya.raggedclown.net) by post.mail.nl.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16VDBm-000Ms3-00 for stable@freebsd.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:55:18 +0000 Received: by tanya.raggedclown.net (tanya.raggedclown.intra, from userid 500) id DBEAE45218; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 15:55:17 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 15:55:17 +0100 From: Cliff Sarginson To: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Firewall config non-intuitiveness Message-ID: <20020128145517.GB1907@raggedclown.net> References: <20020127220923.B1494@shell.gsinet.sittig.org> <20020127134511.Q81780-100000@rockstar.stealthgeeks.net> <20020128064925.GA1180@raggedclown.net> <20020128135643.GH33952@madman.nectar.cc> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020128135643.GH33952@madman.nectar.cc> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.24i Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 07:56:43AM -0600, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote: > On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 07:49:25AM +0100, Cliff Sarginson wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 27, 2002 at 02:50:50PM -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote: > > > At this point I'm rather reticent to even bother submitting anything to > > > the "security officer" role as Warner has indicated that he's part of that > > > role and will speak out against it in the name of security. I'm not a > > > member of the inner circle, just a long-time user who saw some confusing > > > behavior and thought that there was an opportunity to fix it. > > Warner's not the only member of the Security Officer Team. If you > actually feel there is a problem, please write it up concisely. I > have only seen vague arguments here (probably because I missed the > beginning of the thread), and couldn't make a judgement. I'm sure > others are in the same position. > > > I think you were quite right to, and I think you are right. > > But you are fighting the forces of reaction here, in my view. > > This whole thread has been a very depressing reflection on the > > inability of any of the people arguing against you to make > > any coherent argument against changing something to make sense. > > > > This is just conservative status-quoism gone mad. > > > > You are not alone in finding the current wording and behaviour > > of this feature inconsistent, and initially incoherent. > > > > Perhaps we are just too dumb. > > Or perhaps there has been no effective case made for a change. > In your opinion. The case has been made, clearly and coherently. In my opinion. Opinions are wonderful things. People hold onto them so dearly, and proclaim them so loudly :) It is clear that the current situation is a) satisfactory to the old-guard who don't want even the smallest detail changed and b)unsatisfactory to dumb newcomers who are asking that something makes sense (sense in the English Language). -- Regards Cliff To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message