Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 18:59:12 -0500 (CDT) From: Alex Nash <alex@fa.tdktca.com> To: Adam David <adam@veda.is> Cc: CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-all@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-share@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/share/doc/handbook firewalls.sgml Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960914183023.28485B-100000@fa.tdktca.com> In-Reply-To: <199609141903.TAA10011@veda.is>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 14 Sep 1996, Adam David wrote: > > Log: > > Revert the description of -N to its original form. It was right the > > first time. > > 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? Because they're not, -N only affects the display of the ipfw chain. This is not clear from the man page, but given two conflicting pieces of documentation, it's probably a wise idea to check the source than to randomly choose which is right. Your first tip off that something was wrong should have been when you made these two changes (to fix something that was "clearly wrong"): -<tag/-N/Resolve addresses and service names. +<tag/-N/Resolve addresses (but not service names). -<tag/-N/Do not attempt to resolve given addresses. +<tag/-N/Attempt to resolve given addresses and service names. Alex
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.960914183023.28485B-100000>