From owner-freebsd-doc  Fri Mar  8 18:10: 6 2002
Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.21])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BBA937B402
	for <freebsd-doc@freebsd.org>; Fri,  8 Mar 2002 18:10:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from gnats@localhost)
	by freefall.freebsd.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g292A2C52131;
	Fri, 8 Mar 2002 18:10:02 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from gnats)
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 18:10:02 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <200203090210.g292A2C52131@freefall.freebsd.org>
To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org
Cc: 
From: Dima Dorfman <dima@trit.org>
Subject: Re: docs/35686: blackhole(4) page seems to contradict itself in WARNING 
Reply-To: Dima Dorfman <dima@trit.org>
Sender: owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-doc.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-doc>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-doc>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

The following reply was made to PR docs/35686; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Dima Dorfman <dima@trit.org>
To: swear@blarg.net
Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: docs/35686: blackhole(4) page seems to contradict itself in WARNING 
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 02:01:46 +0000

 "Gary W. Swearingen" <swear@blarg.net> wrote:
 > 
 > >Number:         35686
 > >Category:       docs
 > >Synopsis:       blackhole(4) page seems to contradict itself in WARNING
 > >Description:
 > 
 > The "warnings" section of the blackhole(4) man page has these two
 > statements:
 > 
 >     In order to create a highly secure system, ipfw(8) should be used
 >     for protection, not the blackhole feature.
 > 
 >     This mechanism is not a substitute for securing a system.  It should
 >     be used together with other security mechanisms.
 
 To me, this sounds more redundant than contradicting (they both say
 that blackhole isn't sufficient for a "secure system"), but I can
 understand how someone might interpret it that way.  Do you have any
 suggestions for a better wording?  Perhaps just removing the first
 paragraph would suffice--that seems more like a plug for ipfw(8) than
 a bug in blackhole(4), anyway.

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message