From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Apr 12 11:18:53 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA14300
          for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 11:18:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from veda.is (veda.is [193.4.230.1])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA14286
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 11:18:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from adam@localhost)
          by veda.is (8.8.5/8.8.4)
	  id SAA27895; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 18:18:29 GMT
From: Adam David <adam@veda.is>
Message-Id: <199704121818.SAA27895@veda.is>
Subject: Re: kern/3244: ipfw flush closes connections
In-Reply-To: <199704120228.CAA14395@veda.is> from Darren Reed at "Apr 12, 97 12:20:05 pm"
To: avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au (Darren Reed)
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 18:18:28 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: danny@panda.hilink.com.au, hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > Have you read my earlier e-mail?  This occurs because if you leave out 
> > the '-q' option 'flush' says "Flushed all rules".  But when the tcp 
> > packets come to be sent, and error "Permission denied" is return, so 
> > telnetd/rlogind quite, kernel resets connection and the rest of 
> > rc.firewall is probably not executed.
> 
> Hmmm, if it returned EHOSTUNREACH, would that be as bad as EPERM ?
> 
> Darren
> 

Would seem closer to the truth. What other implications?

Adam