From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Dec 16 9:50:42 2000 From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 16 09:50:41 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from etinc.com (et-gw.etinc.com [207.252.1.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6784A37B400 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 09:50:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from dbsys.etinc.com (dbsys.etinc.com [207.252.1.18]) by etinc.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA63144; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 12:51:16 GMT (envelope-from dennis@etinc.com) Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.0.20001216124841.01e27c20@mail.etinc.com> X-Sender: dennis@mail.etinc.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 12:53:22 -0500 To: opentrax@email.com, dr@kyx.net From: Dennis Subject: Re: Fwd: kyxtech: freebsd outsniffed by wintendo !!?!? Cc: tcpdump-workers@tcpdump.org, ethereal-dev@ethereal.com, snort-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, tech@openbsd.org In-Reply-To: <200012121436.GAA03155@spammie.svbug.com> References: <0012072118150Q.09615@smp.kyx.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Im confused as to what difference it makes? No production server should ever use bpf for any "performance" oriented function anyway. Plus if you are doing network testing you should write to dev/null or a ram disk or better yet dump the packets rather than store them, Every disk will be different so you need to get that variable out of the equation. DB To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message