Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 16:58:04 +0400 From: "Mikhail A. Sokolov" <mishania@demos.net> To: matt <matt@BabCom.ORG> Cc: FreeBSD-STABLE <stable@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: ipfw rule wrong in rc.firewall(?) Message-ID: <19991020165804.A5718@demos.su> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.20.9910192103180.8578-100000@s01.arpa-canada.net>; from matt <matt@BabCom.ORG> on Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 09:11:33PM -0400 References: <Pine.BSF.4.20.9910192103180.8578-100000@s01.arpa-canada.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 09:11:33PM -0400, matt wrote: # Hello, # I don't know if this is what I think it is, but it sure took me ... Hi, I was wondering, since the thread mentions standard rc.firewall, why ain't there a mention of SSH? Political reasons, like 'no remote shells [damemons] available'? If yes, why do we have inetd.conf full of open abilities by default (yes, I've seen the flame about it lately, no, please don't start it once more)? -- -mishania To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19991020165804.A5718>