From owner-freebsd-stable  Fri Nov 14 10:42:39 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA21768
          for stable-outgoing; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 10:42:39 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-stable)
Received: from loverso.southborough.ma.us (simplon.osf.org [130.105.7.200])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA21757
          for <FreeBSD-Stable@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 10:42:22 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from john@loverso.southborough.ma.us)
Received: from localhost.southborough.ma.us (localhost.southborough.ma.us [127.0.0.1]) by loverso.southborough.ma.us (8.8.7/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA18515; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:40:37 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199711141840.NAA18515@loverso.southborough.ma.us>
X-Authentication-Warning: loverso.southborough.ma.us: localhost.southborough.ma.us [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol
To: "Jan L. Peterson" <jlp@imall.com>
Cc: "Studded" <Studded@dal.net>,
        "FreeBSD Stable List" <FreeBSD-Stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject: Re: Serious problem with ipfw in 11/10 Snap 
In-reply-to: Message from "Jan L. Peterson" <jlp@imall.com> 
	<199711141656.JAA29684@banana.imall.com> .
X-Face: "UZ!}1W2N?eJdN(`1%|/OOPqJ).Idk?UyvWw'W-%`Gto8^IkEm>.g1O$[.;~}8E=Ire0|lO
 .o>:NlJS1@vO9bVmswRoq3j<A2*d2*S+2%tyPf2|dwcrNgSx%#^d@7'85{"$i2,xw/T,I<]R$FG"{>
 DdX9YGSeJ5a(mfX[1u>Z63G5_^+'8LVqjqvn
X-Url: http://www.osf.org/~loverso/
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:40:36 -0500
From: John Robert LoVerso <john@loverso.southborough.ma.us>
Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> The only thing we can't do remotely at the moment is powercycle the
> machines.  We're looking into X10 for that. :-)

It works just fine.  For what it is worth, I have some Tcl code that
talks to a X-10 CP-290 interface via an Annex that we use for power cycling
remote crash&burn computers (in a testing farm).  See

	http://www.opengroup.org/~loverso/tcl-tk/

and look for "cp-290".

John