From owner-cvs-all Wed Apr 22 16:58:24 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA06983 for cvs-all-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 16:58:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from dyson.iquest.net (dyson.iquest.net [198.70.144.127]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA06955 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 23:58:14 GMT (envelope-from toor@dyson.iquest.net) Received: (from root@localhost) by dyson.iquest.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA07088; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 18:57:45 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from toor) From: "John S. Dyson" Message-Id: <199804222357.SAA07088@dyson.iquest.net> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet ip_fw.c In-Reply-To: <19980423015125.15103@follo.net> from Eivind Eklund at "Apr 23, 98 01:51:25 am" To: eivind@yes.no (Eivind Eklund) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 18:57:45 -0500 (EST) Cc: darrenr@reed.wattle.id.au, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL38 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk > On Thu, Apr 23, 1998 at 01:50:05AM +1000, darrenr@reed.wattle.id.au wrote: > > ps et.al. aren't that critical. Sure, it suck that they are that > way, but if ps is broken, _you can still get to the machine_. This is > not the case with IPFW. Having a structure-dependent interface for > the firewall is IMO not acceptable. I'm planning (have started) to do > something about it locally; I'd like to throw that code into FreeBSD, > but I'd like to know I'm not alone in thinking that an abstracted, > slighly slower interface for adding rules is a good change. > I agree. John To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message