From owner-freebsd-current Fri Feb 1 14:58:26 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mail.rpi.edu (mail.rpi.edu [128.113.22.40]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5545B37B405 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 14:58:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.acs.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by mail.rpi.edu (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g11MwFX117756; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 17:58:15 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <15448.64681.401219.163184@guru.mired.org> <5F46C986-16DB-11D6-8CEC-00039359034A@mac.com> <20020201173641.GA48397@student.uu.se> Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 17:58:14 -0500 To: Erik Trulsson , Paul Fardy From: Garance A Drosihn Subject: Re: *_enable="YES" behavior is bogus Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.3 (www dot roaringpenguin dot com slash mimedefang) Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 4:52 PM -0500 2/1/02, Garance A Drosihn wrote: >It *is* reasonable for them to assume the same >behavior would be true for network_enable=no. I meant "firewall_enable=no" here! If the option *was* called "network_enable=no", then it would be VERY reasonable to expect the machine to be locked-down! :-) [it wouldn't surprise me if I have done that in some other messages, too. Sorry about that. Maybe I should check to see if my own brain's ethernet cable is plugged in] -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message