From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Mar 28  8:41:23 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 608)
	id 5460B14D2F; Sun, 28 Mar 1999 08:41:22 -0800 (PST)
From: "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb@hub.freebsd.org>
To: luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it
Cc: housley@frenchknot.ne.mediaone.net, noor@NetVision.net.il,
	freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
In-reply-to: <199903281348.PAA03730@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> (message from Luigi
	Rizzo on Sun, 28 Mar 1999 15:48:36 +0200 (MET DST))
Subject: Re: ipfw behavior, is it normal?
References:  <199903281348.PAA03730@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
Message-Id: <19990328164122.5460B14D2F@hub.freebsd.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 08:41:22 -0800 (PST)
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> From: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
> Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 15:48:36 +0200 (MET DST)
> Cc: housley@frenchknot.ne.mediaone.net, noor@NetVision.net.il,
> 	freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
> Content-Type: text
> Content-Length: 1440      
> 
> "add" does not mean "replace"! the old syntax would still be valid.

  agreed!  ;)

> >   seems to me that the new syntax would not be used very frequently.
> >   most of my rules (27 of 30) have "any" as one endpoint.  dont think
> >   that i want to use a "between" in cominbation with "any".
> 
> i guess this is just a matter of preference (or use!). eg you (?)
> said to use

  it certainly is more a matter of preference than substance, i agree
  unreservedly.  when it comes to security issues, i tend to want
  things to be less automatic and more explicit, so that people have
  to realize what they are about, rather than having it just work our
  for them while not understanding what they are leaving open.

  but my objection is not a firmly held belief. 

jmb


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