From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Oct 20 6: 2: 4 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from kremvax.demos.su (kremvax.demos.su [194.87.0.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E9A01B7E2 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 06:01:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sinbin.demos.su!yormungandr.demos.su!mishania@kremvax.demos.su) Received: by kremvax.demos.su (8.6.13/D) from 0@sinbin.demos.su [194.87.5.31] with ESMTP id RAA28849; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 17:00:19 +0400 Received: from yormungandr.demos.su by sinbin.demos.su with ESMTP id QAA53412; (8.6.12/D) Wed, 20 Oct 1999 16:59:03 +0400 Received: (from mishania@localhost) by yormungandr.demos.su (8.9.3/8.9.2) id QAA05841; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 16:58:04 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from mishania) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 16:58:04 +0400 From: "Mikhail A. Sokolov" To: matt Cc: FreeBSD-STABLE Subject: Re: ipfw rule wrong in rc.firewall(?) Message-ID: <19991020165804.A5718@demos.su> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4i In-Reply-To: ; from matt on Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 09:11:33PM -0400 X-Point-of-View: Gravity is myth, - the earth sucks. Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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