From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Jan 28 8:16:58 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mail7.nc.rr.com (fe7.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.54]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44D2A37B400 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 08:16:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from i8k.babbleon.org ([66.57.85.154]) by mail7.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); Mon, 28 Jan 2002 10:14:29 -0500 Received: by i8k.babbleon.org (Postfix, from userid 111) id 92F0A4032; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 10:12:20 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Brian T.Schellenberger To: Cliff Sarginson , stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Firewall config non-intuitiveness Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 10:12:20 -0500 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3] References: <20020127220923.B1494@shell.gsinet.sittig.org> <20020128135643.GH33952@madman.nectar.cc> <20020128145517.GB1907@raggedclown.net> In-Reply-To: <20020128145517.GB1907@raggedclown.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <20020128151220.92F0A4032@i8k.babbleon.org> 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 Monday 28 January 2002 09:55 am, Cliff Sarginson wrote: > On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 07:56:43AM -0600, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote: > > > Perhaps we are just too dumb. > > > > Or perhaps there has been no effective case made for a change. > > In your opinion. I think there's more than an opinion at work here because . . . > The case has been made, clearly and coherently. But by definition not effectively if the change isn't actually going to be made. > 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). Speaking as a sort of "nuetral bystander" who found the old way quirky but understandable, I'd say that the new proposal *would* be more logical, but at the same time it is always good to be careful about changing the definiation of something within a minor release. So why not put together a simple proposal with a justification and submit it to, say, the security list or perhaps even the hackers list as a proposal for FreeBSD 5.0? And for 4.x some documentation clarification is surely in order. (Though I must admit I found the current documentation adaquate for myself--the big note in the kernel config file conveyed the situation to me sufficiently.) Perhaps a note in /etc/defeaults/rc.conf or something? -- Brian T. Schellenberger . . . . . . . bts@wnt.sas.com (work) Brian, the man from Babble-On . . . . bts@babbleon.org (personal) http://www.babbleon.org -------> Free Dmitry Sklyarov! (let him go home) <----------- http://www.eff.org http://www.programming-freedom.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message