From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue May 6 04:38:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id EAA06166 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 6 May 1997 04:38:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from panda.hilink.com.au (panda.hilink.com.au [203.2.144.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA06161 for ; Tue, 6 May 1997 04:38:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from danny@localhost) by panda.hilink.com.au (8.8.5/8.7.3) id VAA24273; Tue, 6 May 1997 21:41:52 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 21:41:51 +1000 (EST) From: "Daniel O'Callaghan" To: Mikael Karpberg cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: divert still broken? In-Reply-To: <199705061037.MAA26007@ocean.campus.luth.se> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 6 May 1997, Mikael Karpberg wrote: > That doesn't mean that drop isn't a better keyword, and should be made an > alias for deny. Although, if it wasn't for backwards compability (which we > should keep, IMHO) then it would be better with: > > drop : be silent > deny : send RST > reject : send ICMP !H > netreject : send ICMP !N > > But... that's not gonna happen, because we want backwards compability, > so just forget I said it... :-) *laugh* I see what you are saying and No, I don't think we can rearrange the keywords that much. deny/reject/netreject/resest will be it, I think. Danny