From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Mon Aug 10 15:56:43 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8EBC99E031 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:56:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "wonkity.com", Issuer "wonkity.com" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A775969 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:56:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wonkity.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id t7AFuJrd023572 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:56:20 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost) by wonkity.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) with ESMTP id t7AFuIVN023569; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:56:18 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:56:18 -0600 (MDT) From: Warren Block To: Adrian Chadd cc: Patrick Hess , Anthony Campbell , FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: Permissions problem for sane In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20150806104335.GA27748@ithaca.acampbell.uk> <1876444.Yqz8SnZpVd@desk8.phess.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (BSF 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:56:20 -0600 (MDT) X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:56:43 -0000 On Sun, 9 Aug 2015, Adrian Chadd wrote: > Why isn't this the default behaviour for the saned package? Would it > be possible to make it just be said default behaviour? Running a network daemon rather than just changing permissions? That's probably why. Can't say what the problem is for the OP, but I know for a fact that it works with the permissions right. My 1640SU has been in use for years that way.