From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Jun 27 10:14:03 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id KAA22409
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 10:14:03 -0700
Received: from gvr.win.tue.nl (root@gvr.win.tue.nl [131.155.210.19])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id KAA22397
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 10:14:00 -0700
Received: by gvr.win.tue.nl (8.6.10/1.53)
    id TAA09420; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 19:13:55 +0200
From: guido@gvr.win.tue.nl (Guido van Rooij)
Message-Id: <199506271713.TAA09420@gvr.win.tue.nl>
Subject: ipfw code
To: hackers@freebsd.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 19:13:54 +0200 (MET DST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 391       
Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

Currently, th ip_fw code has an option to block on packets with the
SYN falg set. I think this is useless as it basically blocks all tcp
traffic. What should be implemented is a way to block those packages
with the ACK bit set. This is usefull for allowing conections only
from one host to another and not the other way around. 
Can we agree on the SYN code replace by the ACK code?

-Guido