From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 16 00:01:34 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBD8A10656CF; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:01:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: from igloo.linux.gr (igloo.linux.gr [62.1.205.36]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F9AD8FC15; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:01:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: from kobe.laptop (adsl68-84.kln.forthnet.gr [77.49.115.84]) (authenticated bits=128) by igloo.linux.gr (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-4) with ESMTP id m6G01FVo009259 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 16 Jul 2008 03:01:21 +0300 Received: from kobe.laptop (kobe.laptop [127.0.0.1]) by kobe.laptop (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6G01EKW032533; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 03:01:14 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: (from keramida@localhost) by kobe.laptop (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id m6G01CAc032532; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 03:01:12 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) From: Giorgos Keramidas To: Ganbold References: <200807131823.m6DINv82033146@repoman.freebsd.org> <487B096D.3050802@micom.mng.net> <487B14A6.2090800@micom.mng.net> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 03:01:12 +0300 In-Reply-To: <487B14A6.2090800@micom.mng.net> (ganbold@micom.mng.net's message of "Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:56:06 +0800") Message-ID: <87d4led7ef.fsf@kobe.laptop> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-MailScanner-ID: m6G01FVo009259 X-Hellug-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Hellug-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-3.775, required 5, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -1.80, AWL 0.62, BAYES_00 -2.60) X-Hellug-MailScanner-From: keramida@ceid.upatras.gr X-Spam-Status: No Cc: Tom Rhodes , remko@elvandar.org, cvs-doc@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, doc-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/security chapter.sgml X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:01:34 -0000 On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:56:06 +0800, Ganbold wrote: > Remko Lodder wrote: >> On Mon, July 14, 2008 10:08 am, Ganbold wrote: >>> Tom Rhodes wrote: >>>> Revision Changes Path >>>> 1.324 +293 -829 doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/security/chapter.sgml >>> >>> Tom, >>> I think you meant: >>> >>> At this point, both networks should be available and >>> seem to be part of the same network. Most likely both >>> networks are protected by a firewall, as they should be. To >>> - allow traffic to flow between them, rules need to be added >>> + allow traffic flow between them, rules need to be added >> >> I think the current line is right. "Traffic to flow" means that it "can >> happen", traffic flow means that it happends... > > You are right, probably I have just misunderstood the whole sentence's > meaning while translating :) In a way, both 'versions' are right. They carry slightly different nuances, but the core meaning is the same. In ``to allow traffic to flow between them'', the sentence emphasizes traffic's ability `to flow' between the networks. In `to allow traffic flow', the term `traffic flow' becomes a compound noun[1]; one whose existence signals something we are interested in. Ultimately, it's a matter of the author's writing style, and of the precise meaning he/she wants to convey. In our case, I don't think it's worth worrying a lot about :)