Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 22:49:02 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net>, hackers@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: securelevel and ipfw zero Message-ID: <199907280449.WAA29417@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9907272247490.64223-100000@janus.syracuse.net> References: <199907271915.NAA26782@mt.sri.com> <Pine.BSF.4.10.9907272247490.64223-100000@janus.syracuse.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> If it will get ALL of you to give it a rest, how about: > per-rule logging limits > logging limit raising > logging limit resetting > Which would all NOT affect the statistics? We need more input from people who use the code, to make sure they don't depend on the current 'features', or can live with changes to them. Implementing it is the easy part, making sure it's the right thing to do is the hard part. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199907280449.WAA29417>